Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 2

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The one delete comes from a reasoning that is obviously applicable anymore. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboard Park Tycoon

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

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

Non-notable video game. This article has been un-cited since 2008, and I can't find a single professional review online. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator: My bad, I didn't realize this already had an AFD discussion so recently. I can't assess the quality of the archived articles since I don't speak the languages, but there's clearly more than I found in my English-language Google search. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I added a bunch of refideas to the talk page when I dePRODDed this back in December - I was able to find several reviews on Archive.org: CD-Action #67 p.92, Secret Service #95 p.61, Xtreme PC #48 p.62, and some short prerelease coverage in Gamelive PC #12 p.39. The game also got two sequels, which similarly have reviews on Archive.org on the talk page that could be used for a 'legacy' section on the article. Waxworker (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  wholly unsourced. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per
  WP:NEXIST. Policy is clear that it's about whether a subject is notable, not surmountable problems such as a lack of citations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment You may like to know that I have now edited the article to add the discussed citations. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California#Lincoln-Villa. No clear case has been made for why the content should be deleted, so it remains under the redirect Star Mississippi 23:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln-Villa, Pasadena, California

Lincoln-Villa, Pasadena, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Came across this guy working on

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. jengod (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  p 01:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete and redirect per above. Unable to find any coverage of this neighborhood. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've been curious how all the real estate sites have sectioned up places into neighborhoods. I know where I'm from these types of things have no basis in anything other than round boundaries. So, I looked it up in google and it's just marketing and reputational strategy. Its how they project an image of expertise and denote where they operate. I don't think we should help contribute to that.James.folsom (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The contents of Template:Pasadena, California and Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California demonstrate what Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) is talking about.

  That said, the article at hand and quite a number of the others need a big According to whom? question mark against them. Looking for sources for the "neighbourhoods" of Pasadena, I found instead two lists:

  • National Register Districts
    • Arroyo Terrace — which we do not have at all (Arroyo Terrace)
    • Lower Arroyo Seco — which we have as Lower Arroyo, Pasadena, California + Lower Arroyo Seco Historic District
    • Old Pasadena — which we have as Old Pasadena
    • Orange Heights – Barnhart — which we have as
      Orange Heights, Pasadena, California → Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California
    • Pasadena Civic Center — which we have as Pasadena Civic Center District
    • Pasadena Playhouse — which we have as
      Playhouse District, Pasadena, California → Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California
    • Prospect Boulevard — which we have as
      Prospect Park, Pasadena, California → Prospect Historic District
    • South Marenga Avenue — which we do not have at all (South Marenga Avenue)
  • Local Landmark Districts:
    • Banbury Oaks — which we have as
      Banbury Oaks, Pasadena, California → Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California
    • Bungalow Heaven — which we have as Bungalow Heaven, Pasadena, California
    • Crawford's Vale — which we do not have at all (Crawford's Vale)
    • Garfield Heights — which we have as
      Garfield Heights, Pasadena, California → Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California
    • Governor Markham — which we have as Bellefontaine/Governor Markham, Pasadena, California
    • Hollston Avenue — which we do not have at all (Hollston Avenue)
    • Normandie Heights — which we have as Normandie Heights, Pasadena, California
    • Ross Grove — which we do not have at all (Ross Grove)
    • South Oakland Avenue — which we do not have at all (South Oakland, Pasadena, California)
    • Washington Square — which we have as Washington Square, Pasadena, California
• We've conflated both of these into "neighborhoods", added a whole load of unsourced extra "neighborhoods", merged some of the historic and landmark districts and not merged some of the things which aren't listed as historic districts or landmark districts at all. And then grouped them geographically instead of which are Historic and which are Landmark.

  Pasadena is a right mess.

  Here are some of the unsourced "neighborhoods" that are not Designated Historic or Landmark Districts but that have been grouped in with them willy-nilly:

  • East Washington Village, Pasadena, California
    — According to the unsourced article, it isn't even in Pasadena.
  • Linda Vista, Pasadena, California
  • Lincoln-Villa, Pasadena, California
  • South Lake, Pasadena, California
  • Oak Knoll, Pasadena, California
  • Marceline, Pasadena, California
  • Madison Heights, Pasadena, California
  • Lamanda Park, Pasadena, California
  • Raymond Hill/Arroyo Del Mar, Pasadena, California
  • Annandale, Pasadena, California
  • Hastings Ranch, Pasadena, California
  • Eaton Canyon — Included in the "neighborhoods" list, but the actual article is about a river valley.
  • Chapman, Pasadena, California
  • California Village, Pasadena, California
  • Victory Park, Pasadena, California
  • Jefferson Park, Pasadena, California
  • Brigden Ranch, Pasadena, California
  • Casa Grande, Pasadena, California
  • Daisy-Villa, Pasadena, California
• Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Uncle G: You bring up some important points and have necessitated that I explain some of my edits, but you have also brought up some things I need to clarify and correct.
  1. First off, as a result of this AfD, I have begun the process of merging the smaller neighborhood articles into the Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California article. I haven't finished yet; I've only done Northwest Pasadena, North Lake and Downtown. Some of the mergers I made might have been in error. In light of Uncle G's comments, I am probably going to pause making additional mergers until we have further discussion
  2. It's important to note that Category:Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California is NOT Category:Historic districts in Pasadena, California. A neighborhood need not be a historic district to be listed among the neighborhoods in the Neighborhoods article. A neighborhood need not be a historic district to have a stand-alone article either; if there is enough sourcing and content in the article. For example, Hastings Ranch is one of Pasadena's newer neighborhoods, but there is enough information there that I will NOT be merging it.
  3. How the NRHP defines a neighborhood and how realtors, residents, or local utilities define a neighborhood may be different. The realtors, residents or utilities definition may include portions of a neighborhood that don't have enough contributing structures.
  4. Several of the historic district articles didn't mention that they had been added to the NRHP. They may have been added SINCE the same editor who created most of them created them.
  5. A couple of these have or had not one but two articles. For example there’s Lower Arroyo as the realtors define it and as as the NRHP defines it. Prospect previously had two articles as well, but I just merged them.
  6. Upon perusal of the Northeast, Far East, Southwest and Southeast sections, Hastings Ranch; Annandale, Lower Arroyo, Lamanda Park and Oak Knoll should be kept, I'm undecided about Bellefontaine/Markham, and the rest should be merged or deleted.
     p 16:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
     ]
  • This is exciting, all the right people to make some precedent in how to deal with notability of these things. James.folsom (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that we do have sources for the Historic Districts and the Landmark Districts, but we do not have any sort of list of the "neighborhoods". I found the two aforementioned lists by accident, when I tried and failed to find any sort of list of "neighborhoods" of Pasadena. Instead I came away with a coffee-table book from Prospect Park Publishing, whatever that is, with two lists of the districts, and the City of Pasadena's maps and lists of the Historic and Landmark Districts. There are ten Arcadia Publishing books on Pasadena, one even devoted solely to Bungalow Heaven, and they gave no clue. One Arcadia book came close with Abbot Kinney's Kinneloa ranch that is now just housing, which ironically Abbot Kinney#Kinneloa does not mention or connect to Pasadena.

    I should add for the sake of completeness that the closest that the Arcadia books come to some "Lincoln-Villa" specifically is mentioning Lincoln Avenue.

    Uncle G (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Neighborhoods in Pasadena, California#Lincoln-Villa. I'll step around the notability issue, there is simply not enough sourcing to write content needing a stand alone article. Just because a topic can technically meet a guideline, doesn't mean it must or should have a stand alone article; the basic (still unsourced) geographic info is already in the target, any sourcing found should go there. It can develop there and if someone finds enough IRS (doubtful) to merit a stand alone article, it can be split out.  // Timothy :: talk  09:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was merge‎ to DMC World DJ Championships as it looks likely that the target will be kept. Should that change, this will be resolved as a deleted redirect Star Mississippi 23:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Mix Club

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

)

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

Non notable, per both

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Entertainment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect into the much more notable event that Disco Mix Club created: DMC World DJ Championships. On the basis of two assumptions: (1) if significant coverage is found later then redirect keeps the history, and (2) the proposed target passes AfD. ResonantDis_tortion 19:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge per

  ATD. Okoslavia (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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.

DMC World DJ Championships

DMC World DJ Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable, per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a big event in the
  WP:RSMUSIC coverage includes [2] and [3] and [4]. A quick look on ProQuest and there is a lot more. ResonantDis_tortion 19:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not voting yet, but I will say for now that the company behind this has been on a crusade to edit-war a 27000-byte list of every winner of every variant of the competition into the article ([5] [6] [7] [8]), so if this article does continue to exist after this the article needs some form of protection--and more watchers, because if e.g. it gets semi-protected and the company creates another account to edit it, I'll no longer be able to revert them. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D1A0:7BBB:E6CF:5C27 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC) (Please send talk messages here instead)[reply]

  (Personal attack removed) 2001:56B:3FF1:1F4D:C499:C323:8671:C49B (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
  list of content for rescue consideration. ResonantDis_tortion 00:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Has in-depth mentions in The Cambridge Companion to Hip-Hop
  ISBN 9780199913015. It is described as having an "enormous impact on the development of playing skills" in the former. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep based on recent changes[9], Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ski

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

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

Non-notable music artist. No significant coverage or secondary coverage seems to really exist. No notable albums. Was created in 2004 back when notability guidelines were a lot less stringent, so I've heard. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Youtube, facebook, Bandcamp, tik tok... I can't find RS for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: inclined per failing
  WP:RS. CSMention269 (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Delete per above. Okoslavia (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to Caucasian carpets and rugs. Star Mississippi 23:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quba rugs and carpets

Quba rugs and carpets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

As pointed out by

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Someone, i guess^{(talk i guess|le edit list)} 21:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Caucasian carpets and rugs. Fails GNG as a stand alone article and is an unneeded CFORK of the proposed target, as stated in the article. No sourced content for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk  13:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect per

  WP:ATD. Okoslavia (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

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.

Aguarecords Productions

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

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability. There is really no independent coverage of the company much less corporate GNG coverage. And the contents reflect that, being basically a short self-description. Of the three references, one is their own website, one is a wayback link about release of a record and one is an interview of their founder by a website with the only info in there about the company being a self-description. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, Companies, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Daniel (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dieschburg

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

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

I am failing to find indication that this painter meets

Weak Keep. There are sources (as pointed out by the keep voters), but only about the copyright infringement controversy so far. Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: For new users participating, this is NOT a vote. Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Luxembourg. Netherzone (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dieschburg is pretty known in Luxembourg for his skills in oil painting, a craft that he honed since being a little child (shown in a news coverage available on Youtube). It drew attention fast and a quarrel, often in public, between him and contemporary and avant-garde artists started.

His works featured in newspapers, publications, and catalogues. The whole copyright law case only came later and went viral in social media because of misinformation, racism and sexism allegations against the painter, regarding his work Turandot. The enormous amount of hate he received led him to close his social media (as stated by RTL). It is true that most Internet searches point to the court case, however he won it.

I think the page about him contains good information and I don´t see why it should be deleted. He is young, the page will probably grow within the next years. JdAlembert (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC) — JdAlembert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete The article's references are largely trivial mentions, often one or two sentences[10] or even less,[11] with at least one reference that doesn't even include this person's name a single time.[12] Despite unsupported claims like "pretty known in Luxembourg" and "vastly discussed in social media," there is no sign that a single event of an art student getting caught copying from other's work is an event of encyclopedic notability, let alone one that would make the student themself meet the notability guidelines of
  WP:GNG. Elspea756 (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: There's coverage of the copyright case [13], [14], appears to have some lasting effect. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Article also contains a copyvio of one of his paintings, perhaps ironically. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Dieschburg is a known artist in Luxembourg because he is the only one in the country who really wants to paint like the masters from centuries ago. He is still very young and his art undeniably draws attention ^[1]. As someone already pointed out, he is not appreciated by everyone, especially the more contemporary school of thought in art reject him. However that is no reason to ignore him. There absolutely is information around him, not only in the context of the copyright case (that he won). The Luxembourgish Doctor of Law, author and philosopher Gaston Vogel said Dieschburg was very important painter for Luxembourg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JangdeBlannen (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) — JangdeBlannen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate further discussion from established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There have been two SPAs participating, and four attempts by sockpuppets impersonating an admin to prematurely close. I'll see if there is another delete-sort category that makes sense. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Singapore. Netherzone (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Delete the article as the article of the plaintiff in the plagiarism case could be added to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law as a case of copyright law of interest.

Sfar13 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even discounting SPAs, there's some split input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have put together a source assesment table of every source in the article, showing that this does not meet
  WP:ONEEVENT with no historical impact. If there were an article about Luxembourg copyright law, this may be of slight interest as maybe a single sentence there about the threshold for photographs to be covered, but there is not significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to support an entire article on this individual art student. Elspea756 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Elspea756
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://www.luxtimes.lu/yourluxembourg/luxembourgguide/grand-duchess-who-triggered-monarchy-vote-died-100-years-ago/7327218.html			A single sentence photo caption.	✘ No
https://www.zlv.lu/db/1/1453151325116			Three sentences in an article about a student group show.	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=4qGtEAAAQBAJ&q=Dieschburg#v=snippet&q=Dieschburg&f=false			Less than a sentence.	✘ No
https://www.luxtimes.lu/culture/thought-provoking-art-stuns-at-strassen-exhibition/1338711.html			Two sentences in an article about a group show.	✘ No
https://www.saatchiart.com/art/Painting-Cherry-blossom-L-une-82/389236/4763659/view		Saatchi_Art is an "e-commerce platform and online art gallery" that anyone can post on.	No coverage at all. This page does not use the first or last names of this art student a single time.	✘ No
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/pitchmark/news/litigation-update-photographer-jingna-zhang-loses-plagiarism-case-against-luxembourg-student-artist-who-ripped-off-her-work-459131			Three sentences about this art student. Majority of article is about whether a photograph was covered by Luxembourg copyright law. From Dec. 16, 2022, WP:ONEEVENT of copyright infringement case.	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCThNlVq-AI	Titled "Interview with art student ..." so this is not independent from the subject's own viewpoint.	? Interviews are generally not reliable sources	? June 21, 2022 video about WP:ONEEVENT of copyright infringement case.	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik2E4BvhbZM	Titled "Interview with art student ... and his lawyer" so this is not independent from the subject's own viewpoint.	? Interviews are generally not reliable sources	? June 7, 2022 video about WP:ONEEVENT of copyright infringement case.	✘ No
https://www.lessentiel.lu/de/story/jeff-dieschburg-kaempft-mit-anfeindungen-auf-social-media-175886478340			Five sentences about the art student getting negative reactions on Twitter. From Dec. 14, 2022, WP:ONEEVENT of copyright infringement case.	✘ No
https://guykaiser.lu/ass-de-jeff-dieschburg-senges-liewens-net-mei-secher-himmelschreiend-sauerei-seet-de-gaston-vogel/		An individual's self-published opinion blog. No editorial oversight.		✘ 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}}.

• Delete - Strongly appears to be a
  WP:ARTIST. Shazback (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:TOOSOON. Thanks for the source assessment table. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Delete per source assessment table. Okoslavia (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Draftify‎ to allow time for sources to be found Star Mississippi 17:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 UAAP Women's Volleyball

2005 UAAP Women's Volleyball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Draftify unsourced article previously deleted. No text, violation of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of the
  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP either, so... Howard the Duck (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Draftify (all), Wikipedia is
  not a data repository. There needs to be drawn a line in the sand so that season "articles" are not made as statistic dumps lacking any kind of context. I would say delete, but there are a lot of similar entries. Geschichte (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The problem with this particular article is that it lacks sources and that notability hasn't been shown, but it's very likely to be able to be sourced based on other season articles if someone has access to 2005 Philippines media. I think draftifying is probably correct, but the topic is likely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Simon Apple

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

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

I couldn't establish that this meets

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nomination. Fails
  WP:BAND, and apart from the external links, there are no sources in the article whatsoever. I couldn't find any reliable sources that mention this band. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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.

Specialty Publications

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

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

I couldn't establish that this meets

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Servare et Manere

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

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

There’s scant evidence of independent coverage. Over one-third of the sources are either on the organization’s own website, on the website of its Tree of Peace subsidiary, or written by its head, Marek Sobola (another article that exudes self-promotion). The rest is stuff like the CV of Sobola’s friend, a dead link leading to the page of a member of the long-defunct Iranian royal family, another dead link to the Mecklenburg-Strelitz dynasty (which was chased off the throne in, uh, 1918), a UN press release which says… nothing about this outfit, etc. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biruitorul,

I don't understand your reasons. The public resources about the organization are valid and there are many of them. I am fixing the website of the former Queen of Iran. The Mecklenburg-Strelitz dynasty website is probably under restoration. I also list other sources from French Polynesia. For example, local television, or the President's office.

I also looked at other sources from Romania. For example News Agency of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Defence Staff of the Romanian Armed Forces as well as the Romanian Royal Family. If one searched well and better, more resources would be found... Repairman745 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • You do realize that long-defunct royal dynasties thrive on any shred of publicity, and that their websites are consequently not the most impartial news source, right? Press releases aren’t that great a source either. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you realize that according to your subjective and personal criteria, about 60% of all articles on Wikipedia would have to be deleted? I don't know what makes you do this, but do you think you're helping wikipedia? Instead of improving the article, without further study and understanding, you simply propose to delete it with one "click"... I don't know, this certainly doesn't seem right and correct to me. And yes, I was looking at your profile, you have "powers" and "competencies" that I don't have. But it's an opinion to an opinion. And I do not claim that mine is the only and correct one. But even yours does not have "divine" superiority. Best wishes. Repairman745 (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HeritageOcean. — Biruitorul ^Talk 14:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Given the numerical split, arguments based mostly on mere assertions are, in my view, too tenuous a basis on which to find a rough consensus to delete. Sandstein 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the 7 October attacks

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

)

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

Article does not deal with a notable subject, merely instances of denial. Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the article

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Page appears to be a collation of anecdotal material alongside some polls, but it does not appear to represent a subject based on secondary analytical sources that seriously discuss it as a cohesive, established topic.
  Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep. There's a body of secondary coverage in RS that seriously discuss it as a cohesive, established topic. These are those which discuss denial as a topic, in addition to many others that discuss instances. Many RS, including those cited in the article use "October 7 denial" to properly encompass the full scale of mendacious claims about what happened that day.

* Growing Oct. 7 ‘truther’ groups say Hamas massacre was a false flag

* Holocaust denial finds new life in Oct. 7 revisionism

* Are conspiracy theories about Oct. 7 a new form of Holocaust denial? Experts weigh in

* Denial of Hamas' October 7 Massacre Is Gaining Pace Online

* Levin vows to outlaw denial of Hamas atrocities

* Anger as Oakland residents defend Hamas and deny 7 October attack at council meeting

* Israel shows footage of Hamas killings ‘to counter denial of atrocities'

* Queens College president condemns Muslim student group’s denial of Hamas attacks

* For most Palestinians, October 7’s savagery is literally unbelievable. Blame the TV news?

* US Jewish groups found ‘The 10/7 Project’ to fight denial of Hamas atrocities

* '26 million people' view social media posts denying Hamas attack on Israel

User:Longhornsg

Without doing

original research, which of the sources explicitly talk about the so-called "Denial of the 7 October attacks"? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

What is OR -- material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists -- here? Please read the RS, which explicitly cover the topic. If we look at Holocaust denial, to which scholars and researchers are comparing the phenomenon of October 7 denialism, Holocaust denial doesn't only include claims that "the Holocaust didn't happen", but also false claims related to size, culpable party, and method of extermination. A claim that only 300k people died in the Holocaust, would be labeled by scholars and RS as Holocaust denial? Nakba denial does not only explicitly include making the claim that "750k Palestinian Arabs were not uprooted from their homes", but per the WP article, a range of charges that are not denial that the Nakba occurred, including the "denial of a distinct Palestinian identity, the theory that Palestine was barren land, and the theory that Palestinian dispossession were part of mutual transfers between Arabs and Jews justified by war." I guess then only someone denying that the population displacement occurs would qualify? Denial of the 7 October attacks, as RS discuss the topic, includes false claims that the attack on Israel did not occur, it was a false flag operation by Israel, was exaggerated, etc. I'm using how RS discuss the topic, which is what we should go by. User:Longhornsg (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IF you think there are problems in other articles needing attention from editors, please convey your concerns to the associated talk pages. Then you can go ahead by quoting the portions where the denial is 'explicitly' covered in a

reliable source. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

??? Between the sources cited here and those already in the article, the topic more than meets GNG Longhornsg (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how GNG established. The denial of 7 oct attacks should have "Significant coverage" among reliable sources, which is not the case now. Significant coverage is defined as the coverage "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Moreover,

WP:SYNTH simply because time should pass so the title receives direct and in-depth coverage by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG as shown by Longhornsg --Shrike (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mainly under the pretense of
  October 7 attacks page and Holocaust denial. The initial article was essentially an essay citing opinion pieces as facts, and equated justification of the attacks as outright denial of them, along with arguably racist blanket generalizations of Palestinians regarding their support of the attacks. Even the second source in the article - the Times of Israel one - doesn't back up the definitions of denialism listed in the article. While there are some great sources/articles on denialism so far (esp. this WaPo one and this
  Times of Israel one), even many of the sources stated by Longhornsg mention Oct 7 denialism as the reason for an increase in Holocaust denial.

I don't see enough RS available at the moment to keep this page up at the moment. Maybe down the line, whenever the effects of denialism is better studied, sure, but right now the article is scraping the bottom of the barrel for scattered incidents of Oct 7 denial in the news, conflating justification of the attacks with denialism at various points, and every article mentioning large-scale denial of the attacks leads into how that denial is part of a rise in Holocaust denialism. Jebiguess (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Jebiguess. If long term, more reputable sources become available discussing in depth denial of the attacks we can remake the page, but for now as said above and on the article talk page there isn't enough there, and the article is heavily breaching
  October 7 attacks page with the few good sources. CoconutOctopus talk 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  WP:SIZESPLIT. As usual, I look forward to the pro-Israel SPAs desperately trying to keep this article around and the pro-Palestine SPAs desperately trying to get rid of it because neither of them are interested in building an encyclopedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge as an
  WP:ATD per Thebiguglyalien. Yeah, all the SPAs are gonna be fun with this one. As for the article, I do think that the sources are good, but for its own article, the content spread feels weak. Conyo14 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep: Sources 1, 15 and to a lesser extent 8 are about this subject. Rest appear to stretch the truth to suit the narrative... Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not seeing that, 1 is an article from the tech editor about people on the internet linked to Holocaust denial, the second is disinfo about 40 beheaded babies and the third is about a Hamas propaganda document. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Jebiguess and
  WP:NPOV, and, while I can understand why the article creator feels the way they do, they have form for ignoring that policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The article is in a quite different space than how the creator left it. NPOV concerns (please articulate what those currently are) are not a reason for deletion. Longhornsg (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a fan of TNT arguments anyways, but the "tipping point" for TNT is if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. Clearly this article does not meet TNT, and its topic meets GNG. Zanahary (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, per Longhornsg and Zanahary. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Zanhary says the article meets GNG without explaining why. On the other hand, Longhornsg, who has been cited by multiple editors here, has not shown how the offered sources can be used to reach the

  WP:GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Which sources meet GNG? Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: as
  WP:POVFORK, in which the article title and content appears designed to suggest that the facts as presented by Israel regarding October 7 are beyond dispute. There has still been no third party validation of the version of events provided by Israel (e.g. Israel forbids doctors from speaking to UN group investigating Oct. 7 atrocities) and the Israeli investigation has barely begun (e.g. Israeli Ministers Come Out Against Internal Probe of Army's Conduct on October 7: Israeli ministers lash out at the army chief of staff over team heading the inquiry into the failures surrounding Hamas' assault. 'We are at war, and this is the time you are starting to investigate?' one said
  ). The facts-and-counterfacts of October 7 are still as we speak being used to justify the killings of a huge number of Gazan people every day, so the well-funded propaganda campaigns are still at their peak and we need to tread very carefully. In time we will know whether it is reasonable or not to "question" the events of October 7, but we are still some way away from that point.

For now, views and counterviews should be integrated throughout the relevant articles. See e.g. Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets
  WP:GNG
  . Plenty of reliable sources discuss October 7 denialism. Just some quick examples, in addition to those provided by Longhornsg.
  • The Washington Post
  • YNet
  • Haaretz
  • Times of Israel
  • Times of Israel
  • The New Statesman
  • Politifact
  • Jerusalem Post
  • Time Magazine

Marokwitz (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look closely at these sources in this list. It is a mishmash of:

• Conspiracy theories regarding the October 7 attacks, i.e. people suggesting false flag or Israeli prior knowledge / letting it happen]
• Disputes regarding Atrocities during the October 7 attacks, i.e. whether atrocities were pre-planned, and whether the facts match the Israeli narrative, and
• Broader articles about the Propaganda during the Israel-Hamas war.

These three articles would be clear and delinated subjects and thus useful articles. This current one that we are discussing is a mishmash, which by conflating these three topics creates a significant POV skew. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about historical negationism related to the October 7 attacks. This term comprises outright denial of the events and conspiracy theories aimed at denying or significantly minimizing the responsibility of the perpetrators. According to a survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), over 90 percent of Palestinians polled believe that "Hamas did not commit the atrocities seen in the videos" on October 7, which is why "Denial of the October 7 attacks" is a notable topic and the subject of intense discussion within reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marokwitz: Just because 70% of polled Americans once believed that Saddam Hussain was behind 9/11,[16] are you arguing that Wikipedia should automatically create an article titled Iraqi involvement in 9/11, focusing on random quotes? — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, an article about

9/11 denial is the correct analogy. That article scope is defined as "a set of overlapping conspiracy theories that dispute the general consensus of the September 11 attacks that a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists had hijacked four airliners and crashed them into the Pentagon and the original World Trade Center Twin Towers, which consequently collapsed. ". Marokwitz (talk) Marokwitz (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Marokwitz: What would you make the equivalent summary scope of this article? Then we can decide whether (a) that specific scope is supported by WP:GNG, or (b) how significant would the amendments to the current article content need to be. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. The topic definitely meets
  WP:GNG. Examples for this claim can be found in Marokwitz's comment. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep Clearly notable per reliable sources documented above. That users are disputing the well-documented atrocities even in this discussion is all the more reason why the article is relevant. Sig for original post - Drsmoo (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC), dispute element struck with sig -Drsmoo (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC) unstruck with sig -Drsmoo (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional More examples of notability:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/opinion/hamas-violence-women-israel.html - “But even as evidence mounted, so did disbelief. On social media, accounts often flood mentions of Hamas’s gendered violence with arguments that no such thing happened… Denials and deflections have come from people with vast reach. Some work at prominent magazines; others run popular podcasts, YouTube channels and websites. These denials have migrated into global leftist discourse and seem intended to sow doubt or prompt wholesale dismissal of the subject.”

https://www.haaretz.com/0000018d-7370-dd6e-a98d-f7722dc00000 - “The denial of mass rapes, substantiated by reams of evidence including from Hamas, has become a consistent pattern at Bay Area public meetings.”

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/haaretz-today/2024-01-04/ty-article/.highlight/you-wont-free-palestine-by-denying-hamas-raped-israelis/0000018c-d582-ddba-abad-d7a3d6510000 - You Won't Free Palestine by Denying Hamas Raped Israelis

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-denials-of-hamas-oct-7-atrocities-spreading-like-a-disease/wcm/2fd96ba1-7568-4291-9874-9e02948daf2a/amp/ - “Denying the horrors of Oct. 7, that is. The sexual violence committed against Israeli women and girls, as well as the utter brutality of it all — the burnings, the beheadings, the torture, and the cold-blooded murders. That is the new denial.”

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-27/ty-article-opinion/exposing-max-blumenthals-deceptive-claim-israel-is-responsible-for-most-october-7-victims/0000018c-102f-d65f-a7dd-f0ff7b550000 - "Max Blumenthal, the editor of The Grayzone website, wrote a piece on October 27 that can only be described as a master class in manipulation. His article provided the basis for the now widespread conspiracy theory denying that Hamas murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-04/ty-article/.premium/how-media-outlets-like-haaretz-are-weaponized-in-the-fake-news-wars-over-israel-and-hamas/0000018c-3076-d15f-a7af-b27664390000 - "According to the BBC’s Sardarizadeh, the denialist narrative that “it was Israel that killed its own civilians on 7 October, not Hamas,” has become appallingly widespread online." Drsmoo (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://forward.com/news/570511/deborah-lipstadt-hamas-attack-denial/ - "While few people deny that any attack by Hamas took place, some have defended the perpetrators by falsely claiming they were primarily focused on military targets, such as Israeli soldiers. Some have also falsely claimed that the Israeli military itself perpetrated some of the worst massacres. Others have questioned the veracity of reports that some victims were raped or beheaded by Hamas fighters."

Drsmoo (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where, exactly, in this discussion are users disputing the well-documented atrocities? Be specific, with diffs. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

If it’s a personal attack then I’ll strike it, I just don’t see how? How is it derogatory? And if it is derogatory, wouldn’t it only be a personal attack If I directed it towards a person by linking to their diffs? Drsmoo (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused editors of this page of "disputing well-documented atrocities." Nobody actually did that, but you've literally accused people of being denialists of a terrorist attack. Of course that's a personal attack! No, it wouldn't be a personal attack if, and only if, you'd supplied diffs. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic and widespread sexual violence/rape is well attested in highly reliable sources. Multiple users posting in this article’s talk page have not only disputed whether this occurred, they’ve called the reliable sources that investigated it “propaganda”. Drsmoo (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you need to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". How the sources are called by others is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted or no. That was a comment on other editors --Mhhossein ^talk 21:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again - provide the diffs. Otherwise, your comment is a general attack on all editors who have argued for a deletion or a merge. You've made a general accusation about people in this discussion, and are refusing to back it up. Do so; or apologise and strike your comment. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EOT. Drsmoo (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun I've now unstruck my comment as the baseless denial of well-established atrocities in this discussion has become explicit. Drsmoo (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: please point us to all of the specific editors and edits against whom your claim is made. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just posted an article from a biased source based on blogs and a deprecated source falsely alleging that there was no systemic rape by Hamas. There in fact was, as is well documented. Your comments, particularly the ones directed at “mainstream Israelis” are unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your evidence that that award-winning journalist Jeremy Scahill is biased.

And please explain what is unacceptable about suggesting that Channel 13 News hosts mainstream Israeli journalists and politicians?

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept is classified as a biased source on Wikipedia. Claiming that the "mainstream" Israelis, who personally experienced the atrocities, dispute them, is absurd. If you're specifically referring to the news, it is also absurd. Even Physicians for Human Rights Israel, who support BDS, report that the widespread rapes occurred. That you found a single biased source and are now going around claiming well documented atrocities didn't occur is offensive. Drsmoo (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every source displays some sort of bias, perspective, or leaning. Nothing wrong with that. What matters for Wikipedia is whether a source is

WP:RELIABLE – and The Intercept is considered reliable here

.

We also don't really care whether a reader finds encyclopaedic content offensive as long as it's correctly sourced and due. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, two days ago on this article, you removed the Washington Post, which is not considered biased, by claiming the author was biased. Drsmoo (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or draftify as
  synthesises these individual views to create an impression that "7/10 denial" is an actual concept or phenomenon, separate from (1) the normal denial
  of uncomfortable facts, and (2) standard political narrative (no political leader ever says, "we deliberately kill civilians").

An encyclopaedic article about denial of something should focus on a well-defined phenomenon, its causes, psychological/sociological mechanisms, explanations, frequency, and so on, based on quality social and psychological studies. Sensational press clippings don't really cut it. For me, the current writeup can only be TNT'ed or, at best, draftified. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep As above. Denial is mentioned in the lede of nearly every article on related topics. Drsruli (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Denial is mentioned in the lede, but not in the actual basis. Most sources refer to Oct 7 denial as a rationale for Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (regular, not weak or strong). Let's start with the undisputed fact that 7 October denial is a thing. Next, based on the impressive amount of sources it should be concluded that is also a notable thing under the GNG. That much is important but still insufficient for a keep. Examing this article in the context of similar articles, it should be concluded that the denial article is a legitimate spinoff of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war#"False flag" conspiracy theories. The section and article should be better integrated. I have added a link that will be a first step. As a notable, legitimate, and necessary SPINOFF, this article should be kept. gidonb (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn’t notices that Misinformation article. Having read it there I feel even more strongly about my delete vote:

  • you assert “the denial article is a legitimate spinoff” but provide no rationale.
  • why not call this False flag conspiracy theories regarding the October 7 attacks rather than trying to combine it with other unrelated elements of the dispute? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could introduce you to new information! It's very important to understand information in context.

Your question if the name of the article should change relates to my comment The section and article should be better integrated. I was thinking perhaps a rename of the "False flag" conspiracy theories section to "Denial of the 7 October attacks" but hadn't thought this through yet. There are other options. For example, conspiracy theories on both ends. That's common and could be more NPOV. Yet it seems that people just deny these atrocities ever happened, also without conspiracy or false flag theories. That would speak in favor of denial again. In the end, this is an editorial decision that could be debated here or on a talk page.

Regarding the rationale or need for having this SPINOFF, it should have been implied above but I'm happy to make it more explicit. Thank you for this opportunity!

Denial of the 7 October attacks

into the Misinformation article, WAY TOO MUCH of the content of the misinformation article would be about one type of misinformation and that article would no longer be balanced over the entire range of issues that it covers. Briefly put, we would knock it entirely out of whack!

Let me know if I missed anything and if my position now is clear to you. I had read your opinion and saw that you think that the article is a povfork. That would be a concern, however, you did not explain a povfork of what. Maybe something you can elaborate upon (or reconsider) under your own position, so to strengthen your own argument. As explained, I view the article as a SPINOFF, not as a povfork, and a legitimate and even necessary SPINOFF at that. gidonb (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: in summary your three paragraphs say simply "[a merger would mean that] WAY TOO MUCH of the content of the misinformation article would be about [denial]". Let's check that in numbers:

• Denial of the 7 October attacks
  - 1122 words, of which about 120 words are generic text about the conflict
• Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - 4328 words, of which the section "False flag" conspiracy theories is 357 words (8% of the article)

So if we were to put this entire denial article into the misinformation article we would be at c.5000 words, of which about 1000 words would be from the denial article (20%).

I think 20% is entirely appropriate.

By the way, perhaps the best illustration of the real problem with this article is its sentence By January 2024, there was a small, but growing group that denied basic facts of the attacks and spread falsehoods and misleading narratives... An NPOV version of that sentence would instead be ...small groups on both sides either denied basic facts or invented and exaggerated facts regarding the attacks and spread falsehoods and misleading narratives... I.e., as is well documented, there are two sides to the propaganda. This NPOV version fits well into a misinformation article, and is much more consistent with the intentions of Wikipedia as a project.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So for the second part, AFDISNOTCLEANUP but that was only your BTW. Let me get back to you on the merge! gidonb (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So a fifth of the texts just on October 7 denial would be way too much text on this topic, relative to the other misinformation topics and (my actual main line) knock [the article] entirely out of whack!. Please take into account that the misinformation topics still have huge growth poptential and take into account that folks would say that the article isn't balanced between misinformation on the different side of this war. Furthermore, the 7 October denial article will still grow a lot because last Sunday a law passed the Knesset making 7 October denial and support illegal. There is no doubt that this law will pass the Knesset again after committee work. So merge, while I always consider, is not a good option. gidonb (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Novel, and entirely ridiculous, theory. Selfstudier (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is not a theory. It's an opinion. Since your response confuses my opinion for a theory, then adds adjectives, then nothing, it's not something that can be answered on the merits. As I always try. Next time, please try to make a point (any) even if you "must" (although it's better not) also share your negative emotions. gidonb (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the theory that this is a spinoff from the Misinformation article. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my opinion about where this information fits, yes. Now if I go back to the intro, you compared this information directly to

2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and ignored the fact that we have a whole range of articles with more detailed information. Very important, as information could have needed to merge there. In fact I did your due dilligence as nominator for you. I checked if there is a place where this should be merged (or redirected) even though there was no serious discussion of such options in the intro. gidonb (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Would the closer kindly take note that this editor has removed a properly placed notability tag at the article with the edit summary "being debated" (which i.s of course why the tag was placed to begin with) Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. My edit has been undone. It's a principled position regardless of whether I want to keep or delete. People slack way too many warnings on articles, usually when they want to delete. When I nominate, I remove excessive warnings so there is a good chance for the opposite position to be adopted. The nominator should convince in the opining. There I count just 12 words and a few more in a comment that was later added below. You will not convince by making the debate unpleasant for those who agree to share their thoughts. gidonb (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For something that is not a thing, not many words are necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for one correct statement: For something that is not a thing, not many words are necessary. Yet the sources prove that 7 October denial is definitely a thing so then you would already need more words. Arguing that it isn't a notable thing is already a huge stretch. Then again, so are some other debates without merit.

More importantly, the combination of your correct statement and your AfD to remove 7 October denial as nonexistent, not nonnotable, indicates that this AfD is an exercise in "7 October denial denial". Someone suggested before that this debate includes 7 October denail. If true, I would call that out. I haven't seen it yet. 7 October denial denial is definately happening here! gidonb (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the sources prove that 7 October denial is definitely a thing Er no, they don't, they just show that this one and that one (eg Palestinians, Hamas) deny this and that, big deal. Random people disputing stuff does not add up to a real subject, not even close. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strengthens my conclusion that this entire AfD is an excercise in denial denial. gidonb (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Note, I write the article). The topic is widely covered and is based on diverse and reliable sources. As usual, I invite those who think the article is not good enough to improve it.Eladkarmel (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or merge in to the main article if anything is salvageable. This is a
  WP:POVFORK, titled and written in a way that disproportionately reflects only one side of the coverage of a complex and still-developing topic. --Aquillion (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Fully agree, and well-worded. Jebiguess (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. asking for deletion with the reason of "merely instances" is not seeing the wood for the trees. TaBaZzz (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the article was about the wood, we wouldn't be here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  of course you wouldn't TaBaZzz (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as discussed by LonghornSG, Zanahary and others, but there are some legitimate concerns about quality which should be addressed appropriately. FortunateSons (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Extremely important topic as per Longhornsg, Marokwitz, Gidonb, Eladkarmel and others. Denying this dramatic event or minimizing the horrendous atrocities committed by Hamas - raping and committing other sexual and gender based crimes, beheading, torturing, burning people alive, mutilating bodies and indiscriminately killing more that 1000 civilians - is similar to denying the Holocaust. Quality is a different issue. GidiD (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We know what Holocaust denial is, we just don't know what 7 October denial is, just something made up. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Iskandar323 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @iskander323 - indeed 695 Israeli citizens + 71 foreign nationals ( + civil policemen killed, counted as security forces).

  But what is your main point? Even a "mere" 766 unarmed people, butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated etc - is not something that should be denied or dwarfed. GidiD (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Quite right. Statements suggesting that ALL or even most of those killed were butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated etc are exactly the type of rhetoric that has allowed for the killing of 30,000+ others. The level of certainty and precision required on these matters is as high as it could possibly be. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Iskandar323 - By all reliable accounts - it was a cold blooded massacre! And I would really want to see your count of the number of assassinated citizens but not killed either in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded or savagely mutilated... Please be specific if you are so well informed. GidiD (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I defer to

  Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @GidiD: if you show me your count of citizens definitely "killed either in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded or savagely mutilated", then I will answer your question. I bet you can’t get to even 5% of the total. Politicians and propagandist media encourage us to extrapolate. We must be much more disciplined when others’ lives are at stake. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a single reliable source supports the baseless claims of "propaganda" in the face of Hamas' well-documented atrocities. Propagandist media would be something like The Grayzone, which should never be regurgitated onto wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The debate here shows exactly why WP needs this article: even some well informed editors attempt to dwarf the attocities commited on 7 October; to claim that the indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians in cold blood was a negligible phenomenon; to deny the usage of sexual crimes as weapon of war. All, in spite of the reliable evidence cited e.g. by Longhornsg and Markowitz and in related articles

  2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. GidiD (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  To Drsmoo's question, see the Jeremy Scahill article quoted and linked below.

  To GidiD's comment, no-one has claimed that "the indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians in cold blood was a negligible phenomenon". This discussion began with GidiD claiming that "[all] 766 unarmed people [were] butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated etc". GidiD was challenged to verify this and did not do so. Instead in the above comment "butchered in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded, burned, savagely mutilated" has been turned into "killing of unarmed civilians in cold blood" and "please confirm that it was all 766 civilians" has been turned into "claiming that it was a negligible phenomenon".

  Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The main reason for the article's deletion isn't because anyone here is outright denying the attacks, it is because the article has extremely shoddy sourcing and can't seem to define how or what denialism is. Not to mention, most links attribute October 7 denial not as a separate entity, but instead as a rationale for an increase in Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Denying any horrible event can be outrageous. But we are an encyclopaedia, not a Sunday sermon. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Going through these comments here, I think we should start an article titled Denial of the Gaza genocide. Then, in case someone takes it to AfD, we'll be able to repeat some of the same arguments to keep it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same at all, since claiming the October 7 attacks didn't happen or were a false flag operation is a fringe view not held by any reliable source, while the question of whether a genocide occurred in Gaza is an active debate. Marokwitz (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current article is not the subject of an active debate if that's what you mean. Selfstudier (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you agree. This is not a debate between reliable sources, as there is clear consensus that atrocities took place, and there is no serious dispute that this was a surprise attack and not a false flag operation. Marokwitz (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant. My point was that a lot of arguments are not based on factual analyses or the existence of the subject, but instead can be summarised as "it's so outrageous that we must keep it". — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm concerned there may be some shifting of the goalposts here. Just to be clear, you're now stating that the sole topic of the article would be claiming the October 7 attacks didn't happen or were a false flag operation, and that, therefore, disputes over whether specific atrocities took place (in a context where there is no dispute over whether the attacks took place and no conspiracy-theories about false flags) would not fall under its scope, and that sources characterizing that as "denial" could not be used? Most of the sources suggested above, including (at a glance) some you put forwards yourself, are on the latter topic, discussing disputes over specific atrocities rather than the more outright conspiracy theories you mentioned. Would you strike the sources you presented that only talk about "denial of Hamas atrocities" and add a note saying that they're off-topic, would not be used in a hypothetical article, and were presented by accident, then? See my comment above for why this is a particular point of concern - every
  WP:BIASED sources for things of that nature and why it's important to wait to put claims of historical negationism in the article voice or title until the dust settles and we have actually high-quality sources capable of giving a sense of what the historical consensus actually is. --Aquillion (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's undeniable that the October 7th attacks occurred and they are presented in Wikivoice everywhere on Enwiki, while the so-called "Gaza genocide" is a

WP:FRINGE viewpoint that is not presented in Wikivoice anywhere on Enwiki. JM (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh really? So it must have been a shock for you when the top UN court decided that that "fringe theory" is plausible.[28] — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To compare with another contentious subect: Clay Shaw was tried in a court of law assassinating Kennedy and the HSCA concluded that there were two shooters, but both of those theories are still

WP:FRINGE. Also, the UN's bias against Israel is detailed in multiple sections of multiple Wikipedia articles: 1, 2, 3, 4. Now that that's out of the way, back to the actual nomination. JM (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

You call a murder of 30,000 civilians in 100 days, "fringe"? Seriously? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's refrain from populism. What is "fringe", that is to say, lacking widespread acceptance, is the assertion that this constitutes a genocide. In order for an action to be classified as genocide, a hundred casualties might suffice; the debate centers on the matter of intent. The October 7th attacks are, as JM stated, undeniable. The allegation of a Gaza genocide, at least according to mainstream sources, is what it is - an allegation, until proven otherwise. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Oct 7 attacks are undeniable, which is why denial of the Oct 7 attacks is not a thing. The mass killings of 30,000 Palestinians is equally undeniable.

The press, still stuck in the crossfire of mass propaganda efforts, is confusing denial-of-the-undeniable with denial (or more accurately, dispute) of unproven claims. We need to be very careful in this area, particularly when this type of information is still being used to justify terrible things.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile Which reliable sources "dispute" or claim as "unproven" Hamas' mass atrocities including widespread sexual violence? Drsmoo (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the Jeremy Scahill article linked and quoted below. In its c.9,000 words it carried out a detailed assessment of the many debunked or unverifiable claims made by the Israeli government. Your comment below about Electronic Intifada is misleading, as the Scahill article does not rely on any blogs or similar for any of his main conclusions - only reliable sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s incorrect, he repeatedly sources alleged discrepancies to blogs, he also cites deprecated sources like Electronic Intifada. The Intercept’s non news articles require attribution due to their bias. In comparison, the NYTimes article he attacks was written by a Pulitzer Prize winner. The shoddy and biased article does not negate in any way the well established facts. Nor does it give you leeway to falsely claim that the evidence of widespread rape and torture is fake. Drsmoo (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Scahill is a widely-respected award-winning journalist. His article is the most detailed I have seen on this topic, and it is thoroughly sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or merge Though the only substantive mergeable content appears to be the very fringe belief that the event didn't occur or was a 'false flag'. This is a
  WP:SYNTHESIS per Aquillion, and the article title and content appears designed to suggest that the facts as presented by Israel regarding October 7 are beyond dispute, per Onceinawhile. It's about something that cannot yet even be defined, let alone been analysed to any degree. Too many details are still unknown to tell what is 'denialism' and what proper scepticism.Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  really? I think no well informed man disputes a) most of the dead in the 7 October attack on Israel were civilians; 2) part of Hamas plan was attacking civilian communities in the kibbutzim - so murdering civilians was premeditated, not a colateral; 3) rape and gender based crimes were used as a weapon of war. Denying or dwarfing these known, well documented facts, is denialism. GidiD (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @GidiD: Confirming both (2) and (3) would rely on knowledge of the intentions of the Hamas leadership. Please point us to solid proof of this?

  In the same way, many commentators have stated that Israel has intentionally killed 20,000 women and children as a weapon of war to create a deterrent. They base this on the genocidal statements made by senior members of the Israeli government cited by South Africa in the ICJ case. But I am sure you will agree in that situation that such circumstantial evidence is not the same as direct proof that the IDF were ordered to intentionally massacre innocents?

  We must be consistent in the way we process information about both sides of this awful situation.

  Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  https://www.thenation.com/article/world/feminists-hamas-rapes/ - "On October 7, Hamas fighters raped Israeli women and girls. Whatever may have been unknown in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the rapes are by now as substantiated as anything ever can be in an ongoing war. There is eyewitness testimony. There are reports from doctors and others who saw bodies of women who had been sexually abused. There are photographs. You have to be a conspiracist or rape denialist to dismiss all that as fabricated. And yet, social media is crammed with dismissals of the evidence as Israeli propaganda'.

  
  

  @Onceinawhile The fact that Hamas committed widespread rape is not disputed by reliable sources. Yet, you've repeatedly claimed that these facts are uncertain, in the context of baseless WP:SOAPBOX proclamations of "propaganda".

  For example:

  
  

  "great to hear that you have been able to confirm these facts are 100% certain. Please could you provide the sources which:

  
  

  • confirms the minimum number of rapes that have been established, perhaps with the names of the victims where available
  • confirms that these rapes were ordered by the Hamas leadership as a pre-planned strategy of terror, ideally with the source explaining how they were able to ascertain this" - Onceinawhile

  
  

  "the well-funded propaganda campaigns are still at their peak and we need to tread very carefully. In time we will know whether it is reasonable or not to "question" the events of October 7, but we are still some way away from that point." - Onceinawhile

  
  

  "if you show me your count of citizens definitely "killed either in cold blood, tortured, raped, beheaded or savagely mutilated", then I will answer your question. I bet you can’t get to even 5% of the total. Politicians and propagandist media encourage us to extrapolate." - Onceinawhile

  
  

  Unless you are able to produce a reliable source that disputes Hamas' documented sexual atrocities, the "uncertainty" and false claims of "propaganda" need to end. Drsmoo (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See the Jeremy Scahill article below, published on 7 February: In light of Israel's well-documented campaign of lies and misinformation about other events on October 7, incendiary allegations, such as claims that Hamas engaged in a deliberate campaign of systematic rape, should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Longhornsg and Marokwitz. They have shown that there is extensive coverage of the denial, therefore it should have an article. JM (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What part of the extensive coverage merits a standalone article instead of a subsection of the 10/7 attacks page or the Misinformation during the Israel-Hamas war page? Jebiguess (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. May be notable based on other people, but at a quick glance, I don’t think that it is ready to have its own article. Also tagged for neutrality, so the article needs to be blown up. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If we blew up every article and section that was ever tagged for neutrality we would have few if any articles in any CTOPs. JM (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to both people above. Conyo14 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Draftify or Weak Keep I think the article is notable enough that it should get it's own page but right now it has some issues. Far too much of the article is about reactions and not enough about the denial phenomenon itself, if that makes sense. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That being said I heavily oppose this article getting deleted. I don't see any POVFORK or SYNTH issues like the commenters above are saying. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as SYNTH and a POVFORK largely per Onceinawhile. nableezy - 20:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to the article about the October 7 attacks. The sourcing isn't sufficient for a stand-alone. Sources talking about somebody somewhere denying something about the attacks do not constitute sources about "Denial of the 7 October attacks." It's not like Holocaust denial or even Nakba denial. It's probably way too soon to be talking about "October 7 denial" -- it's not even been six months yet. I'm not sure about merging -- maybe a close examination of sources would find some content worth including in the main article about the attacks. But whether it's deleted or merged, it shouldn't be a stand alone, not until there's cause to split it out from the main article. (Which would require a lot of sources.) Levivich (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as SYNTH and a POVFORKCrampcomes (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eladkarmel, plus there are anough sources attesting the subject is notable. The nature of such contemporary social phenomena is to be built in the research field for years, so the prominence of instances un the article is natural since 7 October occured 6 monthes ago and does not mean the subject isn't notable. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 23:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because sometime is to be built upon in the future does not mean it deserves an article at the moment. That's what this AfD is about; the majority of sources delineate Oct 7 denial as a rationale for an increase in Holocaust denial instead of it's own, standalone phenomenon. The primary denialist conspiracy, the false flag one, can easily be relegated to a section within the Oct 7 attacks page or the Misinfo during the Israel-Hamas war page. Also, MANY atrocities are denied online shortly after coming to light, like the Douma chemical attack, Mariupol theatre airstrike, and the denial of them is very widely sourced, although the denial is relegated to the article or larger misinformation articles themselves. I don't see how the October 7 is any different, especially considering how recent it is for a large number of sources about the denial to be available. Jebiguess (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Marokwitz, GidiB, Eladkarmel and others. Notable phenomenon, well sourced by diverse multiple reliable sources, describing/reporting it with or without relation to Holocaust Denialism. Noon (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see

  WP:SYNTH. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep Incidents of denial surrounding October 7th events (especially early on) are well covered by diverse RS. Equally so, there are a number of articles already written on October 7 denial specifically as a unique phenomena. The widespread early denial of incidents of violence (which were later confirmed by numerous independent observers), and the publicly covered consequences of said denial, is grounds enough for this article to exist. Mistamystery (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you source any articles that talk about 10/7 denial as a unique phenomenon and the early denial? This AfD regards that most of those articles only briefly mentioned 10/7 denial as a phenomenon as a whole, and almost always as the rationale for Holocaust denial. Jebiguess (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: For starter,
  WP:GNG with the following sources talking specifically about denial: The Washington Post, Newsweek, Ynetnews, The Irish Times, Star Tribune, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Toronto Sun, and the Anti-Defamation League. Then, we also have news articles about Israel currently trying to criminalize the article subject: 1, 2
  .

Lastly, the general notability guideline does not actually require the RS to be unbiased in assessing the notability of any topic. EDIT at 9 February: more sources in Tagesspiegel, Il Foglio, Forward, Le Driot de Vivre, and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy --StellarHalo (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StellarHalo: - more than half of the sources you raised specifically talking about denial are questionable for GNG. Newsweek, Toronto Sun are opinion articles. Ynetnews article is just a rewrite of WaPo's article, should not be counted as separate. ADL's is a blog post. Irish Times has zero discussion of denial in the article beyond the quotes of the Israeli ambassador. starship.paint (RUN) 13:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline does not actually say that opinion articles cannot be counted as RS for assessing a topic's notability. StellarHalo (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. You just said it: "RS". Opinion pieces aren't

WP:RSOPINION. Levivich (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Uh. No. The guideline does not actually say that. If what you said is actually the case, opinion pieces would not have been permitted for use at all. StellarHalo (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? ... Of course synthesis is a reason for a page not to exist - if the topic itself is the creation of original research. If the topic is not cohesively and substantively discussed in analytical, secondary sources then the topic can't be "fixed" because it doesn't exist on an encyclopedia-suitable level.

Iskandar323 (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

+1 source (the Intercept) that expressly mentions the denial comparisons leant on in this page as being propaganda strategy, so not just wayward of

Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

That article consistently cites non-reliable/deprecated sources like blogs and electronic intifada. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - highlighting two independent issues. (1) a recent Arbitration motion regarding PIA Canvassing; (2) noticed that votes on this AfD by active Hebrew Wikipedia editors are currently 6-0 in favor of Keep (1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6), and if you add in sporadic he.wiki editors it is 8-1 in favour of Keep. (7 / 8 / 1 delete). May update numbers later on. starship.paint (RUN) 13:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the comment. It makes sense that Hebrew speakers were more exposed to the phenomenon of the denial.Eladkarmel (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew speakers denying stuff? Ah, that's why they need a law, right, got it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in taking part in a cynical conversation. Speak to me politely, and we will continue the conversation.Eladkarmel (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it "make sense that Hebrew speakers were more exposed to the phenomenon of the denial"? Do you mean because of Israeli reporting like this? It is fascinating to see how matter-of-fact these mainstream Israeli journalists and politicians are when discussing the topic. As if the mainstream in Israel knows full well that their government propagated a large number of significant lies. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is factually wrong and unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I do think this is an important point to denote, but only because these users seem to assert "there are RS mentioning Oct 7 denial, and October 7 happened, ergo a denialism article is necessary." These users also seldom provide sources for their claims. Jebiguess (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the people advocating for delete ought to vote to merge as an
  WP:ATD. Deletion should be a last resort and clearly there is notability about the topic. I still believe the content spread is weak, or the article could have a different title as others have pointed out. Conyo14 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The keepers could do that, too? Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keeping is the first line of defense in an AfD. However, the ATD goes merge, redirect, or draftify. Therefore, if the keeps would rather have the article merge then it is up to them, but the deletes ought to reconsider, since none of that information would be retained. Conyo14 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per Aquillion, Jebiguess, etc. A lot of the linked sources by keep voters are about people "denying" whether certain events happened DURING the attacks. This is a completely different matter than the topic that the page title purports, and if the content belongs anywhere, it belongs on the Oct 7 article itself. A clear SYNTH problem. Also, if the closer is so inclined to care, you can count this as a !!!STRONG!!! delete, but I find using strong before keep and delete fairly gauche. Parabolist (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Important source published yesterday: This article from Jeremy Scahill should help clarify some of the questions discussed above. There is far too much reasonable doubt about the Israeli narrative for a one-sided "denial" article to be justified. Scahill, Jeremy (2024-02-07). "Israel's Ruthless Propaganda Campaign to Dehumanize Palestinians". The Intercept. The Israeli government rapidly deployed a multipronged propaganda strategy to win unprecedented support from the U.S. and other Western governments for a sweeping war against the entire population of Gaza. To oppose Israel's war is antisemitic; to question its assertions about the events of October 7 is akin to Holocaust denial; to protest the mass killing of Palestinian civilians is to do the bidding of Hamas… At the center of Israel's information warfare campaign is a tactical mission to dehumanize Palestinians and to flood the public discourse with a stream of false, unsubstantiated, and unverifiable allegations… But there is a problem with the gut-wrenching narratives that have bolstered the underlying justification for the slaughter of Gaza: They are either complete fabrications or have not been substantiated with a shred of evidence. Many have been thoroughly disproven by major Israeli media outlets… There was no Holocaust survivor killed at Kibbutz Be'eri that day. There were no mass beheadings of babies, no group executions in a nursery, no children hung from clotheslines, and no infants placed in ovens. No pregnant woman had her stomach cut open and the fetus knifed in front of her and her other children. These stories are entirely fictional, a set of audacious lies weaponized to generate the type of collective rage used to justify the unjustifiable… There is no doubt that widespread atrocities and war crimes were committed during the Hamas-led attacks of October 7. It is also true that Israeli military, government, and rescue officials have engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign about the nature of many deaths that occurred that day…. Israel's hasbara campaign is reminiscent of the Bush administration's monthslong carnival of lies, sanitized and promoted by major media outlets, about alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Biden directly participated in President George W. Bush's campaign as well. In his October 2002 Senate floor speech endorsing war against Iraq, Biden declared that Saddam Hussein "possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons."… Israel has painted all actions on October 7 as being committed by Hamas and its fighters. That storyline obviously serves Israel's military and political objectives, but the truth is more complicated… In light of Israel's well-documented campaign of lies and misinformation about other events on October 7, incendiary allegations, such as claims that Hamas engaged in a deliberate campaign of systematic rape, should be viewed with extreme skepticism… As many U.S. media outlets and politicians have promoted and laundered Israel's claims, spreading them far and wide, there have been strong voices among the Israeli public and media that have exhibited skepticism… There is also evidence indicating that Israeli forces responding to the attacks at the Nova music festival, where 364 people died, may have killed Israeli civilians as they attacked Palestinian militants, including with munitions fired from Apache helicopters… The truth is that we do not know how many of their own people Israeli forces killed during the counteroffensive on October 7. Nor do we know what happened in the firefights when armed Israelis, including kibbutz private security and military personnel, sought to defend their settlements… How many Israelis — soldiers and civilians — were killed in the chaos and had their deaths recorded as killed or sadistically burned alive by Hamas? How many Israeli lives were sacrificed under Hannibal-style orders to prevent them from being taken hostage at all costs?… Cynical manipulation of the truth has been a hallmark of Netanyahu's career… The tactic is effective, particularly because the U.S. and other major allies have consistently laundered Israel's unverified allegations as evidence of the righteousness of the cause. Onceinawhile (talk)

That article repeatedly sources details of its skepticism to blogs and deprecated sources like

Electronic Intifada. Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I couldn't find a single reference you alleged. Conversely, I could see a lot of references to reliable, mainstream sources, including Reuters, NPR, Haaretz, Times of Israel, AP News, France24, New York Times, etc. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. For his reference re "valid concern" he sources to a blog. Regarding criticism of the NY Times story, he links to another blog. There are two items sourced to Electronic Intifada. It's interesting that you bring up those reliable sources above, NONE of whom have propagated denial of the atrocities, and in most cases have explicitly confirmed that the atrocities occurred. Haaretz have written two articles about how bad actors have distorted their reporting to promote denialism. Drsmoo (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is Scahill stating that he considers the concerns documented on social media about Shari Mendes' reliability to be valid. Mendes was widely quoted stating that she personally saw a baby cut out of a pregnant woman and both the baby and mother were beheaded, yet it was later confirmed in the Israeli government data that no pregnant woman or unborn baby was killed on October 7. Scahill's judgement thus appears entirely reasonable. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have linked to, above, Drsmoo, are largely opinion pieces! Pot, kettle, black? Can I also ask you to follow talkpage guidelines and not go back and edit prior comments out of chronological order, as your comment inserting all of those unreliable sources (along with a couple of more reliable ones) did? At best, it's disingenuous. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: The guideline in question is WP:Notability which requires the presence of extensive secondary, independent and reliable reporting on the topic. So far the only source which has dealt with the topic directly is the Washington Post article but that is far from extensive reporting. Plus, this is a desperate attempt to force making the attacks on 7 October 2023 to be named commonly as the "7 October attacks" in order to connect it to 9/11. If this isn't delete, it should be renamed or merged at the very least. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources in discussion above clearly show this meets GNG. The quantity and quality of the provided sources show this has enough IRS sources for a stand alone article and these sources show that denial and distortion is an ongoing issue, and it is very clear there will be even more sources in the future. I think the delete votes are
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT
  .

With all the keep votes with sources, those advocating for a delete need to show why not even two of these sources above and in the article are IRS. The deleters should do a source evaluation table (as is common practice at AfD) listing the sources above and in the article and explaining why they do not meet SIGCOV. All I see is

WP:IDONTLIKEIT walls of text.  // Timothy :: talk  19:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

SYNTH and POVFORK does not mean there are no sources, it means that the sources dont treat this topic as a topic and that the presentation of this (as denialism) is a POVFORK from the articles that cover the issues and include all significant views on them. That may be all you see, but that is plainly not the basis of the delete votes. The Washington Post source, for example, merely says But Oct. 7 denial is spreading, but it doesnt really deal with the topic of denialism of the attacks beyond that. That source is cited 11 times for the record. This source, cited in the article, does not once mention denial or denialism. This source, again cited in the article, does not once mention denialism. The sources in the article do not in fact treat this topic as a topic, and several of them dont even mention the supposed topic at all, much less give it significant coverage. nableezy - 20:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge some of the content with
  2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Some of the content may be worth keeping, but in my view not enough to warrant its own article. I share concerns about the notability of the topic itself, as expressed by Nableezy. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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.

M-132 (Michigan highway)

M-132 (Michigan highway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Largely procedural nomination. This was

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. ^Queenof_Hearts 19:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are sufficient reliable, independent sources, especially in the History section, to demonstrate notability. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Schierbecker, Imzadi1979, Ritchie333, Szmenderowiecki, Serial Number 54129, Horse Eye's Back, AirshipJungleman29, JPxG, David Fuchs, Trainsandotherthings, and BilledMammal: ping everyone who opined in the GAR. ^Queenof_Hearts 19:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan per ATD-R; insufficient reliable, independent sources to justify a standalone page. Redirection ensues the article's history is maintained for the WP:READER. ——Serial 20:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question from a user who knows nothing about roads: does this pass
  WP:NROAD? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It passes

  GNG, so it doesn't matter, but it also passes NROAD. jp×g🗯️ 21:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  How does it pass either GNG or NROAD? By my reading it passes neither. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, as a state highway. In my reading, the crux of the redirect argument is not that it isn't notable, but that it fails

  WP:NOPAGE. ^Queenof_Hearts 22:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Keep. If the argument against inclusion is that this is notable but we should throw in a vaguewave to NOPAGE to get rid of a good article that

  WP:SNGs – should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @BeanieFan11: how does it meet GNG and the relevant SNG without even a single piece of significant independent coverage? Both standards require it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  NROAD mentions nothing of a requirement that GNG be met as far as I can tell? I do note that sources may be combined to demonstrate notability (

  WP:NBASIC); and roads aren't the most talked-about subject; we shouldn't be overly strict with our deletion enforcement on them, especially when their decent quality and pass the SNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  NROAD says "typically notable" not automatically notable so we do actually need significant coverage in independent sources, it isn't a question of being overly strict... Its a question of being immense leniency to point of IAR. So which sources demonstrate notability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the point of NROAD stating "typically notable" if it means absolutely nothing, which is what you're suggesting? Additionally, there appears to be overall enough sources to build a decent-sized, policy-compliant article, which is the point of notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't mean absolutely nothing it means "typically notable" as in most are notable but some are not. We have requirements about those sources to count towards notability, for example that they be independent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  State highways don't get an automatic pass through NROAD, what are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I will say here what I said there: sometimes a topic doesn't need to have 70 paragraphs written about it. I have driven on this road; it's pretty nice. But it's not that long. There's nothing wrong with the road, there's nothing wrong with the topic of the road, and there's nothing wrong with our article on the road: it cites reliable sources to inform readers about it. It's also got some detailed historical information that would otherwise be quite difficult to come across (like the fact that was in the original planned route for the highway that later became 94, or the fact that parcels in its right-of-way were deeded by Henry Ford in 1933). Lest somebody say "You're saying it's useful, which means you're wrong, and if it's useful that actually means it should be deleted", this is why I don't think it should be crammed into a list, there's too much content and too much information to be made a list entry without bloating out the list. I really don't see a reason to get rid of this other than not liking it or thinking it's stupid. Wikipedia is not a comedy forum where we make lists of things we think are dumb, it's an encylopedia, so if something is an encylopedia article it belongs here. jp×g🗯️ 21:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the argument is

WP:IAR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the argument is the extremely large number of policies that govern notability and content on Wikipedia, all of which this article complies with. Do you have an explanation for how this doesn't meet GNG? Do you have a reason why the fifteen sources on the page are all bad? jp×g🗯️ 04:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, hence failing both the GNG and the SNG. None of the 15 sources on the page contain significant coverage in a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep This isn't detailed enough for a GA, but there is just enough information in the history section to show the article can have insights and explanations that go beyond what can be glanced at from a map. (Note, I suggested a redirect in the GAR, but there are a few threads of potential, such as an explanation for the name changes, and its relevance for the Michigan State Spartans football). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't have any significant coverage in independent sources and in order to keep it under either GNG or NROAD we would need multiple. If there are sources beyond the ones on the page which contribute to notability can someone name them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Merging is not a realistic option when the target is a list that has to also cover 300 other highways in the state. The existing sources in the article are sufficient and don't run afoul of GNG nor our other policies on sourcing as it stands. SounderBruce 04:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

1891 Manhattan Athletic Club football team

1891 Manhattan Athletic Club football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes GNG with Cbl62's expansion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

1913 Christian Brothers football team

1913 Christian Brothers football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

First, this is not a college football team. Second, the subject does not meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If I recall correctly, Christian Brothers was a college in the early 1900s and for a time was considered to be an elite level program. I will dig deeper later but didn't want the AfD to continue on the presumption that this was a high school football team. Cbl62 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't looked for sources yet, but that does seem to be the case - looking at the article, they beat Southeast Missouri State (a current Division I team) 97–6 and held undefeated Notre Dame to a two-score win! BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a couple sources and confirmed that this was "Christian Brothers College", not the high school. Pretty sure this is going to be an easy keep, but I don't have time to add more sources until later today. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Will withdraw then if you feel like you can find more/better sources than what I could find. Let'srun (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Sutherland District Council election

1977 Sutherland District Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The election is not notable and is of negligible importance.

Simply does not pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. For example, the analysis of the results was in The Scotsman. Unfortunately, the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have any papers from Sutherland in the 1970s to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 152 district councils at
  WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Under the two tier local government structure in Scotland 1975-1996 district councils were one of two primary local authorities in Scotland (the other being the regional councils) and had significant responsibilities. However, the issue is it is going to be difficult to get coverage of elections to some of the smaller districts, particularly in rural areas where independents dominated and a lot of seats were uncontested. While I would lean towards Keep, I can see why it is going to be difficult to create an article that actually has much to say about the contest. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional sources, background information and ward results to try and help move this discussion forward. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Consensus in previous AfDs is that district council elections in the UK are deemed notable events. Number 57 13:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Dunarc. For cases where sourcing beyond simple reports of the results may not be readily available a merger to a summary article like 1977 local elections in Scotland might be more likely to achieve consensus than outright deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to Minix. Star Mississippi 23:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minix-vmd

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

)

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a suitable redirect target - main Minix article (there is already an subsection about this topic). Pavlor (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:THREE sources are added to the article that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, and show why this is not a unneeded fork ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  18:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

 // Timothy :: talk  18:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceline (band)

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

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

Doesn't meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree that this seems to be a clear failure of
  WP:COI additions from an individual identified as a founding member. Created at a time when scrutiny was low and doesn't seem to have been challenged in that time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Agreed with nomination - clear notability failure. There is no real evidence I can find the band existed, with search engine hits mainly returning the wiki page. ResonantDis_tortion 18:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom and the above. Fails
  WP:BAND, and almost nothing is found on Google that mentions this band. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth and independence Star Mississippi 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Tennis Academy

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

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

Is this academy really notable? The sources contain passing mentions in relation to tournaments but there isn't enough coverage here for me to be convinced that topic passes

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The sources seem to scrape by requirements for RS, and it is important to cover The relatively uncelebrated world of women’s sports in the gulf states. Llajwa (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I went through the sources that this wiki article has, and it does have alot of coverage on the tournament but, there are certain amount of coverage which are written about this academy alone as well... most preferly why it was started, its significance etc . it is a women exclusive academy which is used to train women who are interested in tennis and is quite popular in the middle eastern region for its annual tournament where international women players also participate... other than that it has coverage in reliable source like vogue and gulf today and if we consider with respect to the size of a particular country or community in that place... i think it is notable. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Spam refbombed to pr pieces about a tournament, many using the same wording so clearly rehashes of the same press release. Lacks any depth of independent coverage about the academy. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 7 of the 10 refs are to same press-release in slightly different formats. The other three Arabic references, reference the organisation by folk involved e.g.Sheikha Sheikha bint Mohammed bin Khalid Al Nahyan, who is the founder of organisation, so not independent. The other two appear to be PR. They don't have bylines. Its seems to the founder of the organisation, "Sheikha Sheikha bint Mohammed bin Khalid Al Nahyan" doing some PR for the organisation on a successful completion on the 13th year and so are not independent source. They are very poor sources. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in the article are mill news about events and promo, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (SMK Tennis Academy) directly and indepth. BEFORE found nothing that meets SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  17:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 17:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Slack

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

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

A tragic event sure, but not a notable one. Not the first child to discover drugs and die from them, nor the last. While yes it got a bit of national coverage, it was a flash in the pan tragic news story with no long reaching consequences outside of the immediate family. Can't seem to find any section in

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable crime? It's basically a poisoning, no matter how tragic, it's somewhat routine. No lasting effects, no changes in laws or packaging standards. Largely a memorial page. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For what it's worth, I'm from the area and unfortunately I doubt many would recognise this from the victim's name alone anymore. Beyond the issue of notability, how much of the article would even be suitable to keep? Only three of the five references are still online, leaving most of the content floating. 2A02:C7C:9838:5700:25D7:40CF:9A18:3671 (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Nassief

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

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

Sending to AfD after a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  talk) 16:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the following Arabic-language coverage:

• "عادل نصيف .. سفير الفن القبطى فى العالم" [Adel Nassif... Ambassador of Coptic art in the world].
• "الكنيسة الأرثوذكسية تنعى الفنان التشكيلى عادل نصيف" [The Orthodox Church mourns the visual artist Adel Nassif]. اليوم السابع (in Arabic). 2021-03-19. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
• "عادل نصيف: العمارة فى مصر الآن أصبحت فى خصام مع البيئة والواقع - بوابة الشروق". www.shorouknews.com (in Arabic). Retrieved 2024-02-03.
• "تشييع جنازة الفنان التشكيلى عادل نصيف غدا ودفنه بمقابر الأسرة بالبحيرة" [The funeral of visual artist Adel Nassif will be held tomorrow and his burial in the family cemetery in Beheira]. اليوم السابع (in Arabic). 2021-03-19. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
• "الكنيسة القبطية تنعى الفنان العالمي الراحل عادل نصيف" [The Coptic Church mourns the late international artist Adel Nassief]. مصراوي.كوم (in Arabic). Retrieved 2024-02-03.
• "اليوم.. إقامة مراسم دفن وعزاء الفنان العالمي عادل نصيف رائد فن الأيقونات القبطية" [Today.. a burial and condolence ceremony was held for the international artist Adel Nassif, the pioneer of Coptic icon art]. مصراوي.كوم (in Arabic). Retrieved 2024-02-03.

The fact that in spite of

WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of news sources we have this much coverage indicates that the subject is notable. Jfire (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per adequate sourcing, with thanks to Jfire for translations and explanations. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep references included and notability meets measure requirments. --Ghaly (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passes
  WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as mentioned above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to Abbott and Costello in Hollywood as it's now mentioned there, rendering this a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 17:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Studios

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

)

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

An article that appears to be mostly

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Television. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS for a real Mammoth Studios, but only in the context of interviewing a staffer about the film industry. The rest is unrelated, based on observations and theories by Wikipedia editors. Articles need to be based on reliable third-party sources, and not original research of noticing the same word across a few film/television scenes. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Abbott_and_Costello_in_Hollywood (either #Plot or #Production or even ad hoc section with sources such as this one or this one, indicating it's the MGM.) One can also think a Disambiguation page is suitable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm fine with a redirect, if there was actually any content if the target - but there's not even a mention here. Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is mentioned now. I've added a different source, though, as the 2nd I had mentioned above was published at Lulu.com. But I've added it both in the plot and production sections. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Abbott_and_Costello_in_Hollywood because content is now there in a section, as user My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) indicated. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG. Mentions are not enough to demonostrate notability a fictional name used for fictional companies in a few unrelated movies. I think the article itself reflects the lack of SIGCOV, it is OR and trivia mixed in with some SYNTH.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 17:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Pangeni

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

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

An autobiography. Meets neither general Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines, nor the specifics laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). None of the sources cited are both independent of the subject, and discussing him in the required depth. Source (1) is a standard brief university teaching staff bio. Source (2,4) is Written by the subject. Source (3) is a link to a page which makes no mention of him, and which wouldn't be independent if it did. The remaining sources (5-8) are papers authored by the subject. An online search finds nothing obvious to suggest that further sources could be found to meet our requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, and Nepal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have put the new source for source (1). More independent sources will be provided to make sure the page meets Wikipedia guidelines. 2600:1700:1DCA:8080:9509:CAEA:F9DA:DBAC (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The new source does nothing further towards meeting our notability requirements. We need in depth independent coverage of the individual, not the individual himself discussing a project he is working on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am a new user but I understand what editors such as AndyTheGrump means. I have edited the article massively on seeing that the page deserves being there looking at the research portfolio and community engagement of the subject but requires massive revisions. I have done quite a bit and needs more to be done. Fekudinesh (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am new for Wikipedia for creating contents. I have also done a bit of editing on this subject if it helps. Dinpandey (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it doesn't help. I would strongly advise new contributors to take the time to read

  published reliable sources unconnected to Pangeni, and discussing him in depth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Oh yeah, I am going to create a bunch of new accounts and vote to keep the article. I am sure no one has ever thought of it before, so Wikipedia won't know what hit 'em. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Fekudinesh and User:Dinpandey have been confirmed as sockpuppets of User:Rajendrapppangeni. None will be taking any further part in this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citations on GS far too low to pass
  WP:Prof in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete spam. Wikipedia is supposed to be the last place to report after you have achieved something notable, not the first place to tell the world what you plan to do. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think the citations are enough in this area to make a convincing case for
  WP:PROF#C1, as X says above. Maybe there's in-depth coverage of him in Nepali for his thoughts of maybe returning someday but I don't see it in the coverage in the article, which includes one piece briefly mentioning him and one by him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Way too few citations, and far too early in his career for a page.Ldm1954 (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]