Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 4

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. SNOW Drmies (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyeskyns

Skyeskyns (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)

Lack of notability as per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. InDimensional (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

Notable for being the only one, broad coverage in the press, and lifestyle publications. I do not know if "The Royal Household" are a customer but HRH The Princess Royal popped in for a cuppa in 2014. I could write more but I am just not interested. 86.136.70.190 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC):Note:This user has made few other edits on Wikipedia. [reply]

Are you affiliated with Skyeskyns in some way? InDimensional (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 31.51.170.77 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete zero indication of passing
  WP:NCORP entirely promotional, a before finds nothing. Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Company information, and facts, for example only one in scotland, and year of incorporation are not promotional. Invalid comment. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete It isn't even close IMO. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As per above comment, and below. Too many similar articles to be considered a valid comment, even if there are a number of similar businesses in Scotland. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Try googling Skyskyns Guardian, Skyeskyns Scotsman, or Skyeskyns New York Times and I think you wil agree your comment is without merit. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "Google" and the like are not third-party reliable sources to establish notability (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) The claim that "other stuff exists" is addressed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_use_or_avoid_%22other_stuff_exists%22_arguments Unfortunately, not every organization meets Notability standards. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  16:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misinterpreted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Please be specific. Same applies to the other stuff.

Google is not the source but does return links to a number of primary, and secondary sources.

The most relevant primary sources are at the bottom of this page. Scholarly articles can be found on JSTOR, and patents can be retrieved from the patent office. 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inputs. https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=31.51.170.77&users=86.136.70.190&users=81.135.8.134&users=86.142.106.90   Aloha27  talk  19:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article was a hijack, but the previous article wasn't notable either so I have tagged that for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't matter, if a page is being trolled, its fine to have it noted in the edit history. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(uninvolved non-admin vote) burn it with fire (^{the damn spam IPs} due to

WP:COMMERCIAL. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Company information, and facts, for example only one in scotland, and year of incorporation are not promotional. Invalid comment. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious first edits.

WP:COI Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

This is now gone to ANI, oh good god. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{King Crimson} 17:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment - there has been some moves and other stuff that occurred because this was created in a user sandbox and moved with the sandbox history which had a draft for a band which was not the topic of this article. I've undone the moves. This AFD is about the tannery and the article is about the tannery and not the band. See the article talk page for more details. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a mess. Before the article is deleted as it should be, there needs to be a history split, so the version about the band can be debated separately. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that a split is necessary. The original author published the band stuff separately here. -- Whpq (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really sure what the point here is. The content of the edit history is not relevent, and usually consists mostly of vandalism. Wikipedia policy is to not interfere. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of
  notability. The clain to be "the only sheepskin tannery in Scotland" is unreferenced and doubtful, see [8]. Maproom (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  https://www.isleofskye.com/attractions/visitor-centre/skyeskyns. I do wish editors would actually check references before making comments like that. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the reference. It's clearly not an independent source, and the claims it makes should not be trusted - particularly when there's evidence to the contrary. Maproom (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not a regular AFD participant, but this seems too much like
  WP:NCORP. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Company information, and facts, for example only one in scotland, and year of incorporation are not promotional, and contribute to family history, and the encyclopedia. Too many similar pages to be considered a valid comment. 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per my replies and adding the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.8.134 (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well sourced encyclopedic article that specifically avoids selling or promoting a product. Key references are:

  • Official website (primary Source)
  • the view from my kitchen window
  • secondary second source, confirming national significance
  • Herald article
  • Scotsman Article
  • Second Scotsman Article

  how do you strike through repetition? 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, blatant advertising, sourcing does not establish notability. -
  MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  A number of inexperienced editors have already made the same point. Are you suggesting the business does not exist? 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He most certainly isn't calling this a hoax.

talk) 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete: God almighty this is the definition of a 'short stub'. Doesn't get anywhere close to even getting within sniping distance of suiting GNG.

talk) 17:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

yes but chgfkv is a valid criteria for escalation 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parden?

talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Zero evidence of passing
  WP:NCORP. Had a search for any independent sigcov and nothing much appearing. Very obvious COI meatpuppetery going on in this thread. Qcne (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:NCORP is satisfied on all accounts. No idea what the other comment refers to. Specifics please or I will out you. 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per above. This is getting absurd with the amount of sockpuppetry.
  An ANI report has been filed for this. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  tee he he 86.142.106.90 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Spam all you want. But in the end, I will have the last laugh. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You laughed slightly late, page protected by

  talk) 17:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• DELETE. Absolutely ridiculous stub with zero evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Everything has pretty much been said. Fails
  WP:NCORP, non-notable. Get it outta here. --My Pants Metal (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete I was unable to find anything to meet
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not establishing that this company is notable. Shaws username . talk . 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Just noting that I've also semi'ed the article for a matching period of time. Will not affect closure in either direction this discussion goes. Star Mississippi 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is the first article I've nominated for AfD, what a learning experience, hope future nominations go smoother than this! InDimensional (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing that can establish notability has been found and I doubt it will. Fails
  WP:GNG. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 00:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete blatant pure promotional page for a non-notable company. Also their single (unlikely but it's a stretch) claim to notability, that they are the only sheepskin tannery in Scotland, is easily disproven in 10 seconds on Google. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: One of the most obvious PROMO stubs I have ever laid my eyes upon. DrowssapSMM 14:25, 8 March 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. There is a consensus to Keep this article. I recommend that, in the future, the nominator present a more coherent, well thought-out deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE. Discussion about a page move and changing the article title can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of North Korean terrorist attacks

List of North Korean terrorist attacks (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)

What is a terrorist attack and what is not cannot be determined neutrally, besides there are no sources and the article seems to be of no use. Youprayteas ^{talk/contribs} 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails

WP:NPOV and has a list that can't be measured objectively. Not a good start, but i'm surprised North Korea and state-sponsored terrorism is not an article. -1ctinus📝🗨 18:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Terrorism committed by North Korea exist, and list are more useful than categories since you can get more information and find what you are looking for. I added references easily found in the articles linked to. Dream Focus 19:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 1ctinus. I'm not convinced by Dream Focus' argument: in my view,
  WP:ATD should try to create North Korea and state-sponsored terrorism; there is plenty that can be incorporated from State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list)#North Korea. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Category:Terrorism committed by country and Category:State-sponsored terrorism do exist. Dream Focus 20:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but not list articles. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to
  WP:NPOV, but it seems like deletion would only exacerbate Wikipedia's surprising lack of coverage on the subject, and this move to a more appropriate page title and article format can at least encourage editors to continue improving said coverage. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Sources have been found on the current topic.
  WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The topic is notable. Deletion is not a solution for this. Orientls (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – With perhaps a name change to: List of terrorist attacks attributed to North Korea. Svartner (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At best this should be a rename discussion, not a deletion. And if your impression is that we can basically never call anything on Wikipedia "terrorism" because it's hard to define, you're not quite correct. Read

talk) 11:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment
  WP:LISTCRIT would need to be chosen with care: if NK abruptly test-launches a new weapon in the Sea of Japan, people are terrorized. Was it terrorism, or was it a weapons test? Reliable sources may diverge on the answer, and MOS:TERRORIST doesn't address this. User:IgnatiusofLondon's idea of an article, rather than a list, would be my preferred solution. Waiting for further comment before deciding whether to "keep and rename". Wikishovel (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  To my understanding, MOS:TERRORIST imo would address the nature of a weapons test: we'd follow what RS would say. If they describe it as terrorism, we'd call it the same. If not, then not.

  talk) 20:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Keep. Per

WP:CLNT, lists shouldn't be deleted because you prefer categories. Also, the table is somewhat more informative. Better Nuncio (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not merly a preference but a belief a category is more appropriate than a list here — it protects against

WP:NOV and other concerns that list articles, as more directly editable pages, facilitate more easily than categories, especially on an article likely to attract politicised commentary. I'd understand the "somewhat more informative" argument if there were dozens of entries on the list, but there aren't. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There have been sources added so this article is no longer unsourced. I heavily disagree with the idea that "What is a terrorist attack and what is not cannot be determined neutrally" as there have been tons of reliable sources on this topic, not to mention all of the other Wikipedia article in this topic area. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the other Wikipedia article in this topic area aren't list-articles. Lists invite

United Kingdom and state-sponsored terrorism, and likewise for every other country. What's avoiding a deletion here is that North Korea and state-sponsored terrorism doesn't exist, so there is no suitable redirect target. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:06, 7 March 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.

Bonnie Briar Country Club

Bonnie Briar Country 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)

Notable people have been members, but the club itself does not appear to be notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, every country club is going to have a few notable members, but this is
  run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 7 March 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Agar

Jerry Agar (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 are no reliable sources talking about this person in any significant depth.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Illinois, Missouri, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The National Post reference, already in the article, is detailed and significant. I've fixed the link, but it should have popped in a Proquest search. There is a LOT of mentions of him as a key player during Mayor Rob Ford's drug and sex scandals, as Ford would appear repeatedly, often exclusively, and sometimes even sober, on Agar's show. Also in the Tuggs scandal, as reported nationally in the Globe and Mail. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I know of him, but can't find much of anything about him. [14] is confirmation of his radio show. He's been sued for defamation a few times, but that doesn't make him notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nfitz' refs. As to Oaktree b's comment about defamation suits: I think they belong here if, but only if, he lost a suit, had to retract his comments or to apologize. This is because any valid defamation accusations speak to his reliability as a broadcaster, a salient issue in his field. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 4 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferroelectric Glassy Water

Ferroelectric Glassy Water (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 only mentions I can find are the papers from Martelli and Cassone. Looks like

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Italy. Broc (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the only mention of the term I can find is in the paper cited, it does not appear to be used elsewhere. Not yet notable, if the concept is mentioned in other journal papers, might be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Define a threshold of how many citations a paper must have before being considered. Also, there are papers being cited multiple times -and are therefore "notable"- because they are wrong. Is "Nature Communication" not a "notable" journal? Bender bonder (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  However, after reading the TOOSOON guideline I agree this article should be postponed. Bender bonder (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: too soon for a page; I agree that we're looking at primary sources only, from one group only, the work of Fausto Martelli and colleagues. The topics needs reviews published by other groups to establish notability. Klbrain (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not one group only, it's a collaboration of two groups and the paper cites other groups. Scientific papers are published after having been reviewed. Define a threshold of how many citations a paper must have before being considered. Also, there are papers being cited multiple times -and are therefore "notable"- because they are wrong. Bender bonder (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  However, after reading the TOOSOON guideline I agree this article should be postponed. Bender bonder (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article is based on two recently published primary sources from the same group, which is a sign of
  WP:TOOSOON. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This is not the same group. This is a collaboration from two different groups who put together different expertises. Bender bonder (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After reading the TOOSOON guideline I agree this article should be postponed. Bender bonder (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is only hypothetical, with results by computation. Until this is confirmed by an experiment we cannot say this is even real. Pure water when exposed to electric field of 1MV/m does start to have interesting properties, eg it can form bridges. But this needs fields 1000 times stronger, hard to do in bulk. An unconfirmed idea may be notable, but it would have to prove itself, by being published on by multiple independent authors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Go ahead and delete all "hypothetical" works including basically everything in Math. Bender bonder (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, based on this reasoning you should mark for deletion String Theory, or M-Theory. Bender bonder (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Orienting water and other molecules in electric fields is well known, see Electroviscous effects (which needs expansion) and Electrohydrodynamics as well as related material. While the science is OK, it is not new. This is probably why it is not well cited. I am also not sure about the notability of Fausto Martelli.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum: There is a new AfC page

  Draft:Electrofreezing that has just appeared also from @Bender bonder. That page states that the science dates back to 1892. That this page has been written ignoring the prior science that @Bender bonder's own actions indicate he knows implies to me a case for Speedy Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Addendum 2 It should be noted that the pages

  WP:COI, I don't have rights to check. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 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 Alaska Airlines. I'm closing this as Redirect. Content is preserved in case this "proposed" merger occurs and an article is warranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines

Merger of Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines (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 question the notability of this article. The limited information on this page could be covered on the Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines pages. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Aviation. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Alaska Airlines: where a section about the merger already covers almost as much as this article does. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: To my knowledge, the question when it comes to notability is not whether or not the subtopic could theoretically be covered in another article. States of the United States could theoretically covered in one article. It's whether the subtopic has enough coverage to establish notability under the notability guideline. This topic unquestionably does: there is substantial international coverage of the merger announcement, more coverage when Hawaiian shareholders approved it (something I have not added yet), prior speculation of consolidation before the announcement, and there will be continued coverage regardless of the outcome. We have many articles about mergers between major companies because if we incorporated all of the info into the primary company's article, it would take over the article: examples include Sprint and T-Mobile, Asiana and Korean Air, Microsoft and Activision, U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel, etc. This is a common enough genre of article that we have an infobox template specifically for this. Avgeekamfot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Additional comment: I understand that the article as it currently stands could be merged but this is just a start. In terms of pure notability source assessment, this article already incorporates significant coverage from the San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor, Reuters, and AP. But there's additional significant coverage from essentially every major media outlet in the U.S. and global aviation media. Happy to pull up more if anyone is unconvinced of this and is unable to find these examples easily. Avgeekamfot (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes,

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not saying the merger isn't notable, I'm arguing that it is not notable enough to sustain a standalone article. Even with eight sources cited, there's little more information on this page than there already exists on the Alaska Airlines page. A lot of the sources are simply rehashing the AP or Reuters wire copy, localized to their market, or parroting the Alaska/Hawaiian press release. My biggest concern is that this page will end up like a lot of those merger pages, withering away with little attention from editors who will inevitably focus on the main Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines pages. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't think that the proposed merger of Korean Air and Asiana Airlines article has withered away as editors focus on the main airline pages and think the same will happen here as I (and other aviation-interested editors) build this article out. On the contrary, merging the topic into the main article will result in the section becoming disproportionately large. Avgeekamfot (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hawaii, Alaska, Japan, and Korea. 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avgeekamfot (talk • contribs)
• Comment: to be clear, this is an article about a proposed merger that hasn't happened, and potentially may never happen. I don't know if WP:CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON apply, but I don't see the routine churnalism coverage as establishing notability per WP:FUTUREEVENT. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll come back to this later but it goes far beyond "routine churnalism". There was speculation from industry insiders about consolidation before, there's reporting on the original announcement, coverage of continued movements in the merger process, industry analysis on the effect on competition, anti-trust process, and more. Putting this all in the Alaska Airlines article would take over the article. We don't need a crystal ball to find enough coverage to prove notability of this. Avgeekamfot (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To elaborate: the original announcement was covered by pretty much every including New York Times, don't think I need to list these out but there's more in the article. There's multiple examples prior speculation/analysis of a merger (need to research this bit more but I've seen others); lots of analysis on consumer impact including from San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, ABC, Travel Weekly, Conde Nast, View From The Wing, Star Advertiser; speculation on anti-trust implications from CNBC, Bloomberg Law, Skift, AP, NPR; analysis on how the deal developed from Seattle Times, Bloomberg/Japan Times; continued coverage on developments from KHON; and of course financial coverage on stocks, etc. from Reuters, Forbes, Axios, Barron's. This just scratches the surface. It's not

  WP:FUTUREEVENT. It's an ongoing merger that meets the notability threshold with more than enough coverage to merit its own article rather than taking over either airline's article. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Redirect to Alaska Airlines Does not need separate article; few other major mergers have standalone articles, even with news coverage like the above. Propose a split if/when there's actually sufficient content to warrant one. Reywas92^Talk 16:07, 6 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shantel Bailey

Shantel Bailey (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 unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Jamaican women's footballer, to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Jamaica. JTtheOG (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above, also failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:21, 7 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frøya Skjold Sjursæther

Frøya Skjold Sjursæther (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)

Unfortunately fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm the writer and I'm sorry for contributing a page that does not fit GNG. I agree to delete it. History6042 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. None of the positions confer notability. It may just be
  WP:TOOSOON. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:11, 8 March 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amirhossein Sahebkar

Amirhossein Sahebkar (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)

He has many citations but most of them are co-authored with many people (see Google scholar) and it is unclear how significant his contributions actually are. The page does not mention any particular significant contribution. The only non-primary reference is a list of people with the most citations where he was placed 2843rd. The list is not live, but it is archived) Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard not to Keep under

• Delete. Agree with nom. No evidence for independent achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete: Well the second citation is now a dead link, but ranking 2800th and something isn't notable. First one is primary source, with nothing extra that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep C1 does not say anything about the co-authors. More references in the Persian page. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an ongoing discussion on how useful citation counts are for establishing academic natability and one point brought up there was exactly the studies with huge collaborator lists (see this comment: [15]). If you think citations from such studies should be equally important, please bring it up there. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. When faced with the issue of how to assess citations from huge collaborations, my usual response it to scan his profile counting only the first-author papers. Necessarily this will lower the subject's citation counts but I think that the resulting lowered counts will be easier to calibrate against the field than counts from publications with so many coauthors that Google won't even list them all. Anyway, for Sahebkar I find "Are curcuminoids effective" (sole author), 340; "Curcumin downregulates human tumor necrosis factor" (five authors), 296; "Effect of curcuminoids on oxidative stress" (four authors), 244; "New peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists" (three authors), 217; "Lipid-modifying effects of nutraceuticals" (seven authors), 189; "Curcuminoids modulate pro‐oxidant–antioxidant balance" (nine authors), 178; "Why it is necessary to translate curcumin into clinical practice" (sole author), 176, etc. I think this shows that, even when only first-author papers are considered, he has a pattern of well-cited publications and moreover a clear focus for his research topics, enough to make me comfortable with calling this a pass of
  WP:V, which trumps notability. I tried some cursory searches but only found random author and speaker profiles likely written by the subject. But if more substantial sourcing of his education and career milestones can be turned up, it might be enough to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: It looks like there are some Farsi language sources. I've made some updates to the article. TJMSmith (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the added sources by
  WP:NACADEMIC. Other concerns of a microstub addressed above seem solved now. Broc (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the above. – GnocchiFan (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. As mentioned by others, while his h-factor is large this is for multiple author reviews and should not be considered just by itself. With just his h-factor I would have voted delete. However, the addition of the award satisfies what has been discussed in
  WT:NPROF (but not as yet formalized), a need for reputable awards to indicate that others recognize notability. It is only a weak keep as this is a national award; if it was international then it would be a strong keep. (I still slightly wonder about the award.) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep: I can't necessary see the subject passing
  talk) 07:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. An assessment of the Farsi sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: While coverage has been very limited to two non-resume mentions, Amirhossein Sahebkar has recently won a prestigious award, an indication of future potential (as to the expansion and long-term viability of the page) and additional supporting coverage.

Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 2:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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.

Plants in Meitei culture

Plants in Meitei culture (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)

Author's

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is tricky, because (1) there are precedents, e.g. Native American ethnobotany, and (2) this particular precedent exists because Native American culture is known for its great knowledge of, and sensitive use of, natural resources, of which plants are a major part. The question in my mind is whether the same applies to Meitei culture? If so, this article could be a reasonable sub-article from the main Meitei culture article? I note that the main article does have a section on "Relationship with nature" but I didn't check if it's by the same editor! It quotes the same story and poem. The main article is mostly an index into sub-articles on aspects of Meitei culture so I don't like the idea of merging the present article into Meitei culture, though parts could be merged into other sub-articles. The "religion" section of the main article is a bit of a mess, and is currently the dumping-ground for material closest to Plants in Meitei culture, so I'm concerned that merging this back would make it even worse. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your comment. I'm not implacably opposed to ever having an article on this topic, but per my nom, this article is just a grab-bag of ideas. PepperBeast (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've got a point. Maybe merging the importance-of-nature theme into the religion section of Meitei culture, the folklore paragraph into Meitei folklore, and the bits on plants used in rites and festivals into the matching festival? No objection if anyone produces a more coherent article in future. Elemimele (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the main author's contribution history. It is infuriating. They are just spamming the site with "X in Meitei culture" articles about every object or concept X in the Universe. This is not at all a careful or thought out process like that which went into Native American ethnobotany; it is just the jobless behavior of a Meitei nationalist with too much time on their hands. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

It's hardly an attack unless you think being a Meitei nationalist is inherently bad. This is just the sorts of behavior nationalists engage in; it's inductive reasoning, nothing more, and comes with no value judgement placed on Meitei nationalism. On the contrary I am actually quite sympathetic to Meitei nationalism, and generally agree with their political programme, insofar as it does not concern wasting the time of Wikipedia editors with inane fluff. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note here that

WP:SYNTHesized grab bag of anything relating to plans and Meitei culture, there's just no comparison to something like Native American ethnobotany. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete and tell the main author to stop making articles like this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. Maybe delete one or two iffy sections, like the list of films named after plants, but overall this article has enough content to meet its stated purpose and theme. I'm guessing at this point that the

WP:SYNTHESIS complaint made about this drafter's Metei culture articles is something along the lines of "This article's sections don't really go together well enough to be one article; the Wikiauthor synthesized the connection between these topics by treating them collectively instead of separately" and evaluated the article from that perspective. A snip here and a snip there and it's fixed, with enough left over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

How does a bit of snip snip solve

WP: SYNTH problem when the whole article is synthesized? I was under the impression that per Wikipedia notability guidelines, you can't create an article that groups together a bunch of content under a single header unless independent sources have themselves grouped the same content under the same or a similar header. For example, there are plenty of independent sources that discuss Native American ethnobotany as such, in those same terms (mind you, that is already a much narrower topic than, say, Plants in Native American culture), but I can't find any covering Plants in Meitei culture

. I do see some books specifically on Meitei ethnobotany, but again, that is much more specific than the current title of the article.

Also, if you think the topic Plants in Meitei culture merits an article under that title, than it is inconsistent to delete one or two iffy sections, like the list of films named after plants. Clearly a Meitei film is part of Meitei culture, and if it mentions plants, at all, in the title or elsewhere, it comes under the purview of such an article.

You can argue an article about X belongs on Wikipedia, or you can argue that an example of X does not belong on Wikipedia, but you can't simultaneously argue that an article about X should exist and yet somehow not cover something that is manifestly an example of X. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problems with these articles fall under WP:SYNTH per se. There's no conclusion drawn, no "and therefore C." I think this might be one of those times when the nom couldn't figure out what was bothering them about the article and picked the guideline that they felt came close enough (but I'll defer to PB on that). I think we're more in the territory of "Does this belong on Wikipedia?" which is a subjective matter of editorial discretion and not a bright-line rule or rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and upon further examination of the wording of

WP:SYNTH

I see your point (but I'm not the nominator, so I'll let them speak for themselves of course).

While the article is not a list article per se, in many ways it comes close to functioning similarly to a list article, in that it seems to aggregate theoretically disparate topics just because they fall into the intersection of "Meitei culture" and "plants." On this point, I think we can look to the following guidelines from

WP:NLIST

:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources

"Plants in Meitei culture" have not been discussed as a set, and don't really form a "natural category" of the sort that belongs on Wikipedia. Surely Wikipedia does not license creating articles titled "X in culture Y," for every culture Y and every thing or concept X. That doesn't seem to make much sense, does it? Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This, exactly. If there are independent, reliable sources on something like Meitei ethnobotany or plants in Meitei culture as such, that would be a reasonable indication that the topic is notable. Simply making a heap of items that involve both a plant and Manipur to is creation of an article through OR/synthesis, not real notability. PepperBeast (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so for this article to satisfy, we'd need sources that say "Plants in Metei Culture" is a thing.

First, let's look at the sources already provided.

1) I don't see any titles that specifically say "The Definitive Book of Plants in Metei Culture" etc, but I do see things like "A Handbook of Folklore Material of Northeast India" and "Oral Tradition and Folklore of Northeast India," either of which might have a chapter on plants. I don't have access to the book, but we could ping the drafter and ask.

Now let's look for sources not already in the article.

1) Midas Touch Manipur looks on the nose, but it's a blog.

2) Now I'll Google "Meitei ethnobotany." Oh, here we go: Ethnobotany ...Manipur Ethnobotanical survey Yeah, I'm getting lots of hits for this. Food plants, medicinal plants. This is just Google, not even Google Scholar. I think it's safe to say that "Plants in Meitei culture" is a thing.

3) Google Books gives us "Glimpses of Ethnobotany & Medicinal Plants of Manipur, N.E.," "Ethno Medicinal Plants of Manipur, North-East India: Thoubal," and so on. "The Cultural Heritage of Manipur" specifically has "plants in Manipur" in the preview.

The fact that those sources aren't in the article now might be an issue, but I'm very comfortable saying it puts it in the "tag and fix" column, not the "delete" column. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, you could maybe make the case for moving the article to Meitei ethnobotany, because I ran into the same sources- but you'd not only need to change the title of the page, you'd also need to substantially revise the content of the page, and take advantage of the sources you listed. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not comment on the title at this time. As for content, I find it fine as it is. There is room for improvement, but I see no other issues that would make deletion preferable to retention.

I am starting to get the feeling that you just want these articles deleted, no matter which sources are found or how many concerns are assuaged. Sometimes I get that feeling when the other editor does have a reason, just not one they've said yet. Sometimes it's a "Well if they don't solve problem A, then I don't have to mention problem B" situation. We've solved problem A, so is there a B, even a subjective one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've made my reasons pretty clear at this point- unless multiple (or even one) RS's are discussing "Plants in Meitei culture" as a conjunct, it doesn't make sense to have such an article here. You brought up those books on ethnobotany, but that just isn't the same thing, and I had even noted that earlier, before you. Again, if the author wants to create or move the page to Meitei ethnobotany or similar, I would not really have an issue with this, but the current content of the article isn't about that at all, so it would require a rewrite.

I don't think you can introduce sources which discuss Meitei ethnobotany in support for the existence of an article titled "Plants in Meitei culture" and then when I suggest moving the article, simply declare that you do not comment on the title at this time. Articles are supposed to be about the subject indicated by their titles, and if said subject doesn't have independent coverage, it's besides the point that a related topic does have coverage, unless you want to suggest a move- but apparently that's not what you want to do! So it's totally fine if you don't want to discuss the matter of the article's title, but in that case the sources you offer are effectively irrelevant. It's one or the other.

I would also add that if I were really just trying to get this article deleted by any means necessary, for some secret covert reason, I would not have suggested the move (which I did after discussing the same sources as you, before anyone even mentioned a move as a possibility). This was a fundamentally conciliatiory gesture in the sense that it is meant to allow the original article author to salvage as much of their article as they can. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : I don't mean to be confronting or offending anyone's decision. I see that you are worried about
  WP:SYNTHESIS. However, I believe that cultural elements of a particular X culture include folklores, religion, mythology, theatres, cinema, etc. of X. I don't think we have to find sources that mention that Meitei folklore is a part of Meitei culture. Inside the article, I don't provide anything unsourced or uncited. And all the sources are based on folklores, religion, mythology, theatres, cinema, etc. of Meitei. If the sources mention banyan, peepal, marigold, mustard, etc. in relation to Meitei speaking people alias Manipuri speaking people but not exactly the very wording "plants in Meitei culture", I don't think it means marigold isn't plant. I believe Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Besides, there are other similar articles such as Plants in Christian iconography. Everyone is welcomed to improve the article but total deletion is too harsh on this issue. --Haoreima (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Our objection isn't that the sources mention banyan, peepal, marigold, mustard, etc. in relation to Meitei speaking people without using the very wording "plants in Meitei culture". Our objection is more that all of the sources seem to fundamentally be about different things- about, as you note, folklores, religion, mythology, theatres, cinema, etc., and it is you, as the author, that has aggregated these things together just because they mention plants and are part of Meitei culture. If multiple reliable independent sources were discussing "plants in Meitei culture" as a unit, the situation would be different.

  As it stands I think you have a chance of making a case for moving the article to Meitei ethnobotany, while dramatically reworking pretty much all of the content to use the sources that Darkfrog24 mentioned above, amongst others. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are countless papers directly associated with the article's topic in different sources, like:

1. Sacred plant species of the Meitei community (from the ResearchGate)
2. Plants associated in forecasting and beliefs within the Meitei community (from the neist.csircentral.net, a scientific body of the Indian government)
3. wild edible plants used by meitei community of eastern himalayas, india (from bioinfopublication.org)
4. Some Antipyretic Ethno-medicinal Plants of Manipuri Community of Barak ... (from Southern Illinois University)
5. Vegetable dyes used by the Meitei community (from Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research–National Institute Of Science Communication and Policy Research)
6. And so on...

I believe we need not to find sources that say medicine, or cuisine, or crafts, of X community are parts of X culture. Haoreima (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H, I would ask that you de-bold and indent your comment so that your (signed and attributed) post doesn't look like two different people ivoting, to readers who don't look closely enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, this article was accepted by the jury members of the Feminism and Folklore 2023 editathon, organized in English Wikipedia, as a part of their event. --Haoreima (talk) 01

51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- First of all, nom admits topic is notable when they say . I'm not implacably opposed to ever having an article on this topic, but per my nom, this article is just a grab-bag of ideas. AfD is famously not cleanup and if the subject is notable any synthesis probs with the current article should be fixed by ordinary editing. Secondly there are tons of sources for this topic so, as nom admits, it is notable. For instance: [16] [17] [18]. Central and Adams (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please focus on addressing the issues of WP:SYNTH and the inherent notability of the topic itself, with regards to available sources, rather than how this particular version of the article is currently written.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Meitei culture: There's something here, but the article as it stands now isn't it. A few brief paragraphs and a poem. Either redirect or draft until it can be expanded into something more extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Based on the sources provided by Central and Adams, the article is both useful and interesting, making it a valuable addition to an encyclopedia like this. Rather than deletion, the article requires improvement. Thanks. 180.183.224.201 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is consensus that this is an inherently notable topic with an article in need of cleanup. I agree with that consensus. The article merits improvements including the sources found by Central and Adams. Fagles (talk) 01:08, 12 March 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.

Unorthodox Australian Poet

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

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

I can't find any evidence at all that this person meets the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:CREATIVE. Possible promotional article. LibStar (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - a very curious reference suggests that published items identified did exist - : https://www.soundclick.com/member/default.cfm?memberID=5209011&content=photos
  However, the titles seen in that reference, and the three names possible to check, do not show up in Trove, or the state library of western australia catalogue, which suggests that the publications were not legally deposited at the time of publication or after, if the photo is showing legitimate evidence of publication. Initial check was that this was a hoax article that has evaded checking for 15 years.JarrahTree 05:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh he's on Amazon but that particular book is indeed not listed in WorldCat. Graham87 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Chipkin

Ivor Chipkin (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 individual appears to lack notability, with minimal coverage in reliable sources. Most of the available sources consist of passing mentions, author profiles, and some do not mention the subject at all. Despite efforts, no evidence supporting their notability under

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 18:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• strong Keep. Chipkin is a prolific writer on South African affairs with numerous articles in reliable publications. The impact of his work in South Africa on state capture cannot be ignored. Paul W (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-publishing a report alongside other academics does not automatically confer notability. Since there is no significant coverage of this individual except for some passing mentions, if their only claim to notability is their involvement in the "Betrayal of the Promise Report," it should be considered for redirection to the Zondo Commission article. GSS ^💬 18:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposition contains a conceptual error. The report "The Betrayal of the Promise" is undeniably relevant; however, Ivor Chipkin was the co-author of a book that delves deeper into some of the themes discussed in the report, titled "Shadow State: The Politics of State Capture." This book holds significant relevance to discussions on the subject in South Africa, exploring topics not necessarily within the scope of debates that would later center around the Zondo Commission. Among these issues is the relationship between corruption, state capture, and racial categorizations, as discussed by Liz Stanley from the School of Political Science at the University of Edinburgh in a review of the book (she has no known connection to Ivor Chipkin or Mark Swilling). The Shadow State and Racialising Processes | Whites Writing Whiteness (ed.ac.uk)

Moreover, Ivor is the author of other important reports on corruption, including those published by renowned think tanks as well as those he has directed (such as the Institute for Security Studies, one of the most esteemed in South Africa) Dangerous elites: protest, conflict and the future of South Africa - ISS Africa and authoring thematic book chapters published by Routledge, like "Governance, Resistance and the Post-Colonial State: Management and State Building," edited by Jonathan Murphy and Nimruji Jammulamadaka in 2017.Governance, Resistance and the Post-Colonial State | Management and St (taylorfrancis.com) Andrew Brza (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Chipkin and Mark Swilling were the principal authors of the pivotal report entitled "Betrayal of the Promise. They deliberately kept a low profile when the report was released, likely for security reasons. At the time of its release, the authors represented a consortium of individuals from various institutions.

The report was a product of the collaborative efforts of the State Capacity Research Project, led by Mark Swilling as convener. The authorship included a distinguished group: Professor Haroon Bhorat of the Development Policy Research Unit at the University of Cape Town, Dr. Mbongiseni Buthelezi and Professor Ivor Chipkin of the Public Affairs Research Institute at the University of the Witwatersrand, Sikhulekile Duma and Dr. Camaren Peter of the Centre for Complexity and Governance, and the University of Cape Town. Camaren Peter of the Center for Complex Systems in Transition at Stellenbosch University, Lumkile Mondi of the Department of Economics at the University of the Witwatersrand, Professor Mzukisi Qobo of the South African Research Chair Program on African Diplomacy and Foreign Policy at the University of Johannesburg, and Professor Mark Swilling of Stellenbosch University. An independent journalist using the pseudonym Hannah Friedenstein also contributed.

Ferial Haffajee's article on Pravin Gordhan's testimony to the Zondo Commission clearly acknowledges Mark Swilling and Ivor Chipkin as the main authors of the report. This fact is well known in South African public discourse.

News24 Article on Pravin Gordhan's testimony

For further reference, the following links provide access to the transcript of Minister Pravin Gordhan's testimony, in which he frequently cites the "Betrayal of the Promise" report:

Transcript of Pravin Gordhan's testimony Andrew Brza (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but your comment does not reflect reality. Chipkin is often cited in the South African context for his work on state capture. Forbes has an interesting article on his profile. His influential work has led to him being invited to write an op-ed in the New York Times. He is regularly asked to give interviews and write op-eds in South Africa. The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) cited his work as relevant and innovative for proposing new ways to measure state capture in a report published in 2023. He was invited to join the board of the Belgrade Center for Security Policy to contribute to discussions on state capture in the Balkans. He has also been quoted as a source in Brazil's most widely circulated newspaper. If these are not indications of his significant contributions to the field, I find it hard to imagine what other evidence would be acceptable. Andrew Brza (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the Forbes article you are referring to is a contributor piece so there is no real editorial oversight. GSS ^💬 18:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll just ignore all the other points? Andrew Brza (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a lot out there but I can't find any book reviews and I can't find anything which looks sufficiently secondary apart from this: [19] Not sure how to !vote here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Critic of the SA regime who may have made enemies. Good cites for his books. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. Here are some book reviews:
  • Reviews of Shadow State: South African Historical Journal
    doi:10.4102/nc.v83i0.53
  • Reviews of Do South Africans Exist?: African Historical Review
    doi:10.1080/17533170903461532

—David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are now all cited in the article. Paul W (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Good cites for his three main works, and reviews for two of them, but only one is an authored and published book. The other reviewed work is an edited volume, which counts for much less, and I couldn't find reviews for "Betrayal of the Promise". Our source for his 2018 resignation from PARI has allegations of sexual harassment; I think we are correct in only reporting the resignation and not the allegations, as their investigation appears to have been inconclusive, but this is also a bit of a loose end in our sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did find a Mail & Guardian article by Shaun De Waal that described Betrayal as "an extraordinary collaboration of academics and experts ..." Added this. Paul W (talk) 13:10, 6 March 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.