Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America

WP:AFD/USA

Note: This is a high level category for deletion sorting. Whenever possible, it is recommended for deletion discussions to be added to more specific categories, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories, and see this page's guidelines below for more information.

Page guidelines: This United States of America deletion sorting page may be used for the following types of articles:

AfD discussions about people, organizations, companies and other entities that are known for activity or have a presence on a national level in the United States can be listed on this page.
Topics and subjects that are U.S.-based, whereby the article does not provide a specific state of origin or where activity occurs.
Media such as films, television shows and books that have national distribution in the United States.
Products that have national distribution and a significant presence in the United States.
Multinational companies that have a significant presence in the United States, whereby the article does not provide specific state(s) of location.

Dear reader/writer of this WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. The present page was above the template_include_limit. As a result, the bottom of the page was not displayed correctly. For this reason, the transclusion of the deletions sorted by US states has been moved to WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by State.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to United States of America. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United States of America|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

General

Elliot Noss

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Sources 1, 2, 3 cannot establish the subject's Notability. The 4th source is a YouTube link and the last source is a news coverage Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Canada, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see notability for this internet person. Coverage I find is about him selling shares or doing other non-notable business things - in.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/tucows-ceo-elliot-noss-sells-over-28k-worth-of-company-stock-93CH-4443482, which is routine. That site is black listed, so not a RS at all. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025–2026 U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq

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

Pretty much just a hypothetical. It got a little coverage a month ago and nothing since. The U.S. government hasn't officially announced anything. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is one of the craziest cases of WP:CRYSTAL I've ever seen. EF⁵ 19:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CRYSTAL and the creator does realize it wouldn't be decided until well after Election Day, I hope? Nate • (chatter) 21:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Left guide (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Airlines Flight 1326

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

Per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE non notable run of the mill gear fire incident, almost zero notable damage to the aircraft or no signs of the aircraft being important at all. Lolzer3k 17:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, United States of America, and California. Lolzer3k 17:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please tag me in the below discussion so i can get the quickest response out to you ASAP. Lolzer3k 17:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Airbus_A320_family#Accidents_and_incidents, where it must be summarized. nonnotable accident with no sustained consequences.(another possible redirect target is Frontier_Airlines#Accidents_and_incidents, but IMO such things belong primarily to technology, rather than to business.) --Altenmann >talk 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not particularly convinced this even requires a mention in the encyclopedia on any page. This is such a non consequential incident it should simply be deleted. Maungapohatu (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I think Lolzer3k has the right idea, personally. Ryan shell (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryan shell what redirect target do you have in mind? Lolzer3k 18:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think either Airbus_A320_family#Accidentis_and_incidents would be fine or even List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family. The summaries for the Frontier Airlines accidents list doesnt seem quite as deep and there's a lot of information here that could be repurposed. Ryan shell (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cane as a Weapon

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

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.

So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dynasty

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

I don't see how WP:NCORP is met given the sources in the article, and I wasn't able to find sources that would be enough to establish notability either. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[1][2] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films released by Anchor Bay Entertainment

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

WP:NOTCATALOG. Most home video lines have already been deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination), etc.) --wooden superman 14:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; as for notability, the release of forgotten horror films by Anchor Bay has historical value and a chronological list of those films helps document what has been recognized as a valuable contribution to the history and preservation of film: the page documents that in a clear way. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the label itself is notable, the list of films that they licensed for release is not. This is just a catalogue, and largely unreferenceable. It's not like they had any hand in the production of any of these films. Catalogues of way more notable reissue labels have already been deleted, see the linked discussion above and many more similar ones. This is just WP:FANCRUFT. --wooden superman 19:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but my point is precisely that the list itself has value. I could add references to every item and remove those ”unsourceable” if indeed there are any. Later maybe. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Note: Struck comment from blocked user. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; @Cyberpower7 you might want to elaborate if you wish that your !vote receives attention, though. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how encyclopedic is the listing of their 2003 DVD re-issue of The Railway Children for example? Sure, examples of their really notable releases can be and are approriately included at Anchor Bay Entertainment, but including their entire WP:CATALOG here is WP:LISTCRUFT. --wooden superman 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following other examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 88 Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Video USA Releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. No reason to make an exception to WP:NOTCATALOG here. --wooden superman 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Mosh Fest

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, United States of America, and Wisconsin. toweli (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I found was this one single page from a book dropping its name once without SIGCOV. [3] Other than that, nothing to be found. Doesn't meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Stickell

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

I don't think that this character is notable. This article has 10 sources, of all are not reliable and passing mentions. It was recently tagged for notability and there is no help at all. My WP:BEFORE failed to show anything about him. If he isn't fixed, i recommend a redirect to List of Mission: Impossible characters or at worse, Ving Rhames.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Fictional characters. Toby2023(talk) 11:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mission: Impossible (film series) as an WP:ATD. The List of Mission: Impossible characters is for characters from the original TV series; it omits the late-80s revival let alone the film series. The film series article is a better redirect target. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hunt

AfDs for this article:

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

He is a notable character, but that doesn't stop him from being notable. Of all the sources, none are reliable, they are either passing mentions, film reviews, or interviews and don't really talk about the character itself. Luther Stickell suffers the same thing, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luther Stickell. The first nomination was closed a keep, and years later, it isn't fixed. If it's still like this, i would recommend a redirect to either List of Mission: Impossible characters or Tom Cruise. Toby2023 (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toby2023He is a notable character, but that doesn't stop him from being notable. Can you clarify? As for reliability of the sources, have another look please; at least two substantial sources seem perfectly acceptable. Coverage about the character in books and reviews can be considered enough. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also inviting other users to read the 1st AfD. It was a clear Keep decision and generally notability does not disappear with time. What you mention seems to be mere cleanup issues and AfDs are not for cleanup. Feel free to add the sources identified in the first debate to the page if you think the state of the article is an issue.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or DRAFT, Need more relevant sourcing im sure its there UzbukUdash (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and United States of America. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lack of a valid nominator rationale and sourcing was established in the last AfD. Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, so I don't see how article quality effects subject notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any AfD nomination that fails to find a prior nomination and engage with the sources brought up in that discussion is not sufficient to start a legitimate discussion. We could speedy keep on that basis, or keep because notability was established previously and ask the nominator to go incorporate those sources into the article. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom? The nomination seems like textbook WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs clean-up. But there is no doubt that there are sources, and the coverage in them is significant. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Rios

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

Noting that notability, once established, doesn't vanish over time, I have strong doubts that Rios was ever notable in a Wikipedia sense. The article was created during the Wild West days of Wikipedia when articles were almost added willy nilly. I have done a WP:BEFORE, the more so since the alleged references in the article are pretty much useless, and can find nothing useful about her. There's quite a bit by her. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. मल्ल (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The cited sources don't discuss the subject, most of them don't even mention her. The article fails WP:ANYBIO, and WP:V. A quick search doesn't yield any useful results. I doubt that the subject is notable. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most mentions I bring up are about the sexuality of a train driver that caused a crash (which doesn't help notability) as mentioned in source 6. I don't think this person is notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Minor coverage by reliable sources in the past two decades. No claim of notability outside of awards within her own movements. Yue🌙 21:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ardennes

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

No independent RS on the page for a long time. I'm not seeing why this is considered notable to meet the standards for inclusion. I'm not really convinced a RD is necessary but as an ATD it could be redirected to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekly West

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

No refs on the page. Seems WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC in the sense that the majority of the page is a lengthy quote from the newspaper about an event. I don't see that this quote, despite arguably recording an important historical event, means the newspaper meets the standards of notability for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced; searching for information is hopeless. Even if sources could be found, we need more information for an article than just who established this paper and that it once ran an article someone found interesting. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Melts Cube

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

Unreleased track. No reliable sources provided, only citations from "Lost Media Wiki" which is an unreliable user generated site; and there's no concrete evidence of the song's existence. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I searched and couldn't find any evidence that this topic has been picked up by reliable sources. Left guide (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I also found nothing additional. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, agreed with @Left guide UzbukUdash (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say, DJ Speed (Eazy-E Afilliate) confirms as well as DJ Yella (Producer) Which proved existence. If people did research as much as I did, they would know, I also know… in interview, Eazy-E Refers to the diss. Lost Wiki page had the most info which is reliable despite being User Friendly. Also includes sources, just alike Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.20.155.153 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@216.20.155.153:

Existence ≠ notability. Songs must meet WP:NSONG to merit a standalone article.
Wikis are not reliable sources because they are self-published and lack editorial review.
Interviews are primary sources and cannot establish notability.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't buy the "DJ Yella confirmed the existence of this track" argument. If you listen to the interview (linked to in the Lost Media Wiki article), he just says that there's one instrumental that he has with no Eazy-E lyrics on it that might have been reserved for an Ice Cube diss track and he doesn't want to speculate much further. The whole article is based on speculation and is potentially misleading since it makes a number of unverified, and probably unverifiable, assertions. For instance, where is there any solid(ish) evidence that this supposed track is called "Heat Melts Cube"? The sourcing is horrendous : Lost Media Wiki is obviously unreliable. Pichpich (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mass

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

This individual fails WP:ANYBIO and has done so since perhaps 2010. No apparent (nor significant) coverage by any unrelated party. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Maybe the thinnest BLP I've ever seen here! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find anything that tells me this attorney is still active. This attorney has a very lengthy 2011 internet page about himself - personal background listings that have not much to do with being an attorney. The kind of person a town would be proud to have. But his legal "Experience" section is very scant and doesn't tell us much except others he previously worked for or with. An internet search doesn't bring up anything more recent. — Maile (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom UzbukUdash (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mass is still active (the fellow's not yet fifty), and is a political figure in the rural county in which I lived for several years. Further, the article used to be a lot more extensive before rampant page blanking by anon IPs. With that, I doubt many people beyond the city limits of Greenfield, Massachusetts have heard of him, nor that he could meet the GNG. Ravenswing 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People in politics aren't "inherently" notable just for existing, so the article's current form is obviously deeply inadequate if it just says that he exists and fails to even specify what political position he ever actually held in the first place — Ravenswing is correct that it's been longer in the past, but that history has him serving only at the municipal and county levels, which is not a free notability pass in the absence of much, much more reliable source coverage about the impact of that work than the article has ever shown. So there's no prior version of this that could be reverted to as a solution, because nothing that was ever in the article before satisfies the requirements of WP:NPOL either. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I did check old versions WP:BEFORE nominating, as this is obviously a gutted article. I also concluded there was no value in restoring any older versions, and the gutted version actualy portrays the subject in his most favorable light. JFHJr (㊟) 23:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, agreed: Mass' most prominent role as an elected official was as a city councilor in Greenfield, which is well under NPOL's requirements. Ravenswing 04:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and Ravenswing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable local lawyer, I don't see any sources for this person. The pages histories have been deleted and re-created so many times, I gave up trying to figure out what a longer version of this article showed... Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Nominator) WP:SNOW this process please, any available admin. Let's not waste anyone else's time on this over 6 more days. JFHJr (㊟) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If one actually types words into Google, one finds that Mass and his wife are now the owners of the historic Greenfield Garden Cinemas,^[1]^[2] a plausible redirect target per WP:ATD-R. He received a "40 under 40" recognition from a regional business magazine^[3] and his various civic appointments have received local coverage,^[4] although unfortunately it appears that link rot or paywalls have obfuscated many other news articles from over 10 years ago (essentially a new dark age). --Animalparty! (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think it a pretty implausible redirect, actually. The page has minuscule views over its entire history, the Garden Cinema page doesn't even namedrop Mass, and local namedrops ≠ "significant coverage." Ravenswing 16:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and relate to the "dark age" part of @Animalparty!'s comment. There's a tendency for previously free articles to become dead or paywalled over time, or available only by subscription to proprietary archives, e.g. Proquest. I used to get very frustrated about this re WaPo, but now it's all subscriptionwalled. I've begun manually free-archiving new material in my creations for this reason. If you're here long enough, you see sources vanish. For situations other than this AfD, I try to archive decent sources in prior versions, which are sometimes removed just for being dead. I just didn't see any of that for this subject. YMMV. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 18:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Farragher, Thomas (November 14, 2019). "Saving the Garden movie house in Greenfield". Boston Globe.
^ Olson, Kris (15 April 2021). "Lawyer, wife reopen theater complex bought just before pandemic hit". Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
^ "Isaac Mass". BusinessWest. April 23, 2013. ISSN 1049-9822.
^ "Greenfield lawyer Isaac Mass appointed to Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission". masslive.com. 15 March 2012.

Chloe Piene

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

This article was created by and most contributions are from single-purpose accounts. One of these is clearly the artist herself; I wonder if the others have conflicts of interest. One of them (Harajuku650) dropped the problem tags, though perhaps they felt they had addressed the flagged issues? It still sounds less than neutral. This article was tagged for notability issues, and I'm still unclear on whether it demonstrates notability. One editor also suggested it might be easier to delete and start from scratch than rewrite to eliminate the POV content. -- Beland (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Getty ULAN has a biography and list of exhibits [4], this would seem to meet artist notability. The works reviewed (discussed near the end of the article) also show critical notice, which is what's needed for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, England, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is a mess. I started cleaning up the embedded links, changing them into inline citations. Most are garbage. I can't decide whether to skip the clean-up and just do a source analysis. Leaning towards rewriting this completely. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her work has been shown in major institutions, some having acquired pieces for their collections; coverage exists and some is on the page, so that, although the page needs cleanup, an article about her may be retained imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article re-written to Wikipedia standards. This is a notable artist. Removed cruft and weird sourcing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved since initial nomination. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable artist, per public collections Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Donald Trump (Philadelphia)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, and a variation on Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. It happened, yes, but what is the lasting impact? It's just another protest against a politician, though in a somewhat original format, which gave it 5 minutes of fame. Fram (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to give possible time for improvements and to wait for potential future coverage. Not ready for main space.

-1ctinus📝🗨 17:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, it should be merged with Statue of Donald Trump (Portland, Oregon), which is a copy of the same piece. Not sure why two pages were made for it. The same artist apparently also made The Donald J. Trump Enduring Flame and January 6 United States Capitol attack memorial so they could all be merged together since sources like [5] cover them together – there's a lot of temporary protest art that that receives brief news coverage but doesn't individually need standalone articles (also Crooked and Obscene). Or merge to Donald_Trump_in_popular_culture#Art. Certainly not make as many one-line articles as fast as possible – that's what draft space is for! Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'm not sure Wikipedia should keep any of them. Please see There’s no such thing as bad publicity (i.e. things like this keep his name and image before the pubic). On the other hand, I don't see Wikipedia guidelines on what to do about this. — Maile (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Philadelphia and Portland statues are similar, but not the same. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[6] says "An identical one showed up in Portland, Oregon earlier this week". They're not as identical as bronze casts, but they are still functionally enough the same that there is no reason for two separate articles. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable temporary art installation. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merged page as redirect. Since there are now more sources covering both statues together, including some using "In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault" as the title for both, I've redirected the Philadelphia page and moved the Portland page so both can be covered under the official title. I've left the AfD tag on the redirect to avoid removing a template inappropriately. I request to have the redirect page kept (because it serves a purpose) and propose closing this discussion as moot. I've been bold here but hope this compromise / solution works for others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep merged page as redirect

UzbukUdash (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep merged page as redirect as long as article it points to is accepted in main space Nnev66 (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grooving to the Moscow Beat

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

I removed a notability tag because there is a rating from Allmusic. Another editor reverted that because it isn't a review in their view. So, lets settle this. Is this album notable or not? Tag has been on the article since 2012. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after a search for the required "multiple, non-trivial, published works", I could find only one borderline source in the LA Weekly, which I added to the article. Everything else I could find were either blog posts or other user-generated content, which also applies to Allmusic. While the band is notable, this particular album is not unless at least one more source can be provided and some sourced detail about reviewer reception can be added to the article. Certainly an Allmusic rating, which is user-generated, is not sufficient to establish notability and shouldn't have been used as an excuse to remove a valid maintenance template. Skyerise (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The blue star "AllMusic Rating" is official from the site's editors and is not user-generated. The red star "User Rating" is the user-generated one. However, there is consensus thar an AllMusic page with an official rating but no official review does not convey notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. That makes perfect sense. Skyerise (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wajid Ali Syed

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

Fails WP:GNG and cannot be considered for WP: CREATIVE for Journalists. It seems all the articles published for the subject were put together as sources on his Wikipedia page. The sources focused on different walks of life rather than the subject. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources mentioned in the article are not related to the subject of the article. The sources mentioned are mostly the news articles written by the subject himself. These sources do not establish notability. TNM101 (chat) 10:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This BLP is based on self-published sources and clearly fails GNG. Fwiw, the creator Wikiwookie543 (talk · contribs) has created several BLPs that strongly suggest they are engaging in UPE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saqib. Fails WP:GNG. 103.82.120.88 (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — 103.82.120.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism

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 single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Since a large amount of people have expressed concerns about whether this article meets Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I will boldly start an AfD discussion to see what the community thinks, since the talk page discussions have gotten nowhere. I have also seen opinions that this is a content fork of Trumpism, which is valid. I will clarify that this is on behalf of several other editors who expressed concerns, as their opinions do also matter. I personally have no opinion on this. SMG _chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SMG _chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This article is an attack page by its nature, leveraging opinion and speculation. There is no neutral version to revert to. It was created recently before the election, to sway opinion (common sense). It violates NPOV by its origin and nature. As a thought experiment, imagine if someone created a page titled "Kamala Harris and non-black roots" or "Kamala Harris and lack of cases tried as DA" and by its origin it is the same level of non-neutrality. :To the people saying "The page doesn't... even say that Trump is a fascist." The evidence against this is LITERALLY in the title. That's what the word 'and' means. That is a disingenuous perspective. Or "has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection". This is the same gotcha as a journalist on camera asking a candidate "any comment on allegations of drug use, wife abuse, etc etc". That is an attack. Stono rebellion (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is a shame for wikipedia to loose neutrality, the page must be deleted Fasil H. (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. I think this article certainly deserves to exist because it is a common topic of discussion, and has been for at least 3 years (after January 6) but I think a lot of improvements could be made. The article kinda makes it look like only silly conservatives are uncomfortable with the term 'fascist' being applied to Trump, but some scholars have resisted the term as well, and I think that should be given more weight in the article. As far as I can tell, even scholars with a negative view of Trump sometimes think that 'fascism' is too far, seeing him as an opportunist, or, most commonly, not politically astute enough to have a real ideology. And so we should mention that in addition to the slightly different conservative defense (that the word is thrown around too much or is a symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome). Birdsgeek (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are a lot of studies, commentators, political analysts and politicians who have rightly compared Trump to a fascist. And a legitimate topic should not be removed from Wikipedia just because it's hurts the POV of a section of the populace. Nohorizonss (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for violating WP:SYNTH and being irrevocably NPOV. I mean seriously, what next? ‘List of lies told by Rishi Sunak’? ‘Comparisons between Joe Biden and Joe Stalin’? This is absurd. Riposte97 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not American but I follow American politics from my native Africa and what I see is that, over time, Wikipedia has become a strong bastion of the Western far left. This kind of article is just a direct attack on a right-wing politician. An article that takes up all the rhetoric of the far-left. And as luck would have it, this article was written the same day THE GUARDIAN published an article "Is Donald Trump a fascist?".

Speedy keep - has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection between Trump and fascism that addresses NPOV concerns. (Also clearly meets GNG, has 100+ WP:RS) Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as page creator – The page doesn't present any original opinion or even say that Trump is a fascist. It's just a page about the very widespread comparisons, which as a subject absolutely pass WP:GNG. It's not POV-pushing to have an article about a political and academic debate without taking any sides in it. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy, but from my comment on the RM:
If this shifts to a merge discussion, I would strong oppose that; the {{refideas}} at the top of this page shows a wealth of academic and book sources comparing Trump's views to fascism. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
charlotte ^👸♥ 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A few paragraphs are arguably SYNTH violations and some information in the CSECTION should be integrated into the rest of the article, but overall there are more than enough sources for this to pass GNG. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It maintains NPOV as well as an article of this type can feasibly do. Also does not have a deficit of reliable sources. However, if the consensus ends up to be to delete this article, IMO an AFD discussion should be started on Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany due to it being a very similar case.Wildfireupdateman (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes 203.30.3.51 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article pretty clearly does not have a NPOV. The 'Criticism' section, by comparison, is quite sparse and measured. Jehorn (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact exists that Trump has been specifically called a fascist by members of his cabinet, political experts and scholars, and also that his supporters have engaged in discussion about the accuracy, fairness, or property of that qualification. The subject is evidently polemic, but it exists beyond mere political propaganda. Maykiwi (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because previous cabinet members of his cabinet have said something does not make it true. Steven Britton (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a situation like a strong disagreement aka a shouting match in which everybody called each other names. There are thoughtful assessments, even with points of comparison, made post-facto, years later. Also, not just "disgruntled employees" have made the comparison. There are academic studies on the subject. Maykiwi (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth as to whether or not Trump is a fascist (as though that's something that can be objectively true or false either way), what matters is whether the connection has been discussed in enough reliable sources to warrant an article. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article readily meets notability requirements and has a wealth of RS to back up its discussion. The article has recently seen a large influx in users attempting to delete it in part because of an article in a right-wing website accusing it of liberal bias that Elon Musk then retweeted. BootsED (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not WP:NPOV | Also having clearly contentious articles popping up in the moments immediately prior to an election does not maintain neutrality nor does it stride towards the goals Wikipedia--it does not need to be first, and should take a neutral approach to topics after they have been established. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article is thoroughly sourced. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article does NOT violate WP:NPOV, it isn't as if the article states Trump is facist, the article is about a very common opinion people hold about Trump. Comparisons between the president and fascism are quite commonplace in America, meaning this is almost certainly notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Trump has been labeled fascist before because he meets the dictionary's definition.

Simple - if he doesn't want to be labeled a fascist (or a criminal), don't act like a fascist or become a criminal. 2601:44:180:BC30:6DAD:B71C:196E:2C13 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is opinion, not fact. It should be up to the reader to decide. Wikipedia should not be a place to lead people to any one conclusion either way. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Steven Britton (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't be about why Trump might be a fascist. The intent of the article is to provide unbiased documentation on the frequently made comparison -Samoht27 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist" Gremlin742 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term Fascist and Communist is thrown around so loosely these days without any experience or knowledge of what those words mean. It is sad and amusing to hear people say Joe Biden is a Communist or Donald Trump is a Fascist simply because its an easy trigger word to discredit them. These arguments are being made by uneducated people who would not know Communism or Fascism if it hit them in the face and broke their nose.

_

I would love to hear stories of people who truly suffered under the horrible Fascist Trump Regime of 2016-2020, or the tyrannical Communist Biden Regime of 2020-2024, it must have been so horrible, probably more so than Romania where during the Communism regime where women couldn’t have abortions, and if they got pregnant they would be jailed or killed so they would be forced to undergo at home abortions, risking things going wrong and never being able to have children again. Artem P75 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" George Orwell in Politics and the English Language Wizmut (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a discussion of Trump and the "concepts" that swarm around him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally am not a fan of the tone of a LOT of articles that concern contemporary US politics and topics such as the alt-right, but this article reads surprisingly temperate compared to many others. I also think the recent direct comparison by Kamala Harris of Trump to Hitler are the tipping point which justify having some kind of article on these comparisons. As already mentioned above, all sources that are opinion pieces should definitely be removed, though. There is plenty of better sources than that available to prove relevance of the topic. 2003:CD:EF0D:4800:ACD0:3E1F:71CE:6E6E (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trumpism: this is a WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK that fails WP:CFORK. I realize that this article's existence has been the subject of a bunch of angry tweets, many of them from people who are very stupid. It is altogether good and proper for us to treasure our independence, and to laugh in the face of those who tell us the truth is offensive. However, at some point I think we ought to ask ourselves if the article should actually exist, whether its presence accomplishes anything, and whether it conforms to our own rules.

Wikipedia's habit of reflecting what mainstream sources choose to cover means that it has an unhealthy fixation on Donald Trump. We have Donald Trump and handshakes, we have Donald Trump and golf, we have probably a hundred separate articles about every single aspect of the guy and his life and his views and everything about him. It is extremely unusual, even for someone who is the President of the United States -- we do not have this level of obsessive coverage of Obama or Bush or Biden. I get that he is a very visible public figure, and also a very silly guy, and he does a lot of notable stuff, but Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I cannot wait until the year 2029 when I get to fire up the hedge trimmers and merge a bunch of flash-in-the-pan news cycle articles about Donald Trump's opinions on Tabasco sauce and nobody will follow me around to gripe about how this means I am obviously a paid shill for the Republicans and/or Democrats and/or Whigs and/or pushing an agenda for Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Diode and Big Capacitor.

See, okay, there is this very long and convoluted argument for how this article doesn't call him a fascist, it's just a list of every time anybody has ever called him a fascist, which we are assembling in a lovingly made gallery of quotes in an encyclopedia article, which inherently suggests that these utterances are worth paying attention to and that they indicate something useful about the state of reality, also for some reason we do not really spend much time explaining that they are opinions and not factual statements -- okay. I get it, whatever. This will win arguments on Wikipedia. I don't think it is going to convince anybody outside Wikipedia, by which I mean the readers of our project, by whom I mean the only actual people who matter when we make decisions about content.

I don't think we need to have a whole article calling him a dick. I realize he is a dick, but that's not the point -- it is not really necessary to write a gigantic blow-by-blow of every single time somebody has called him one. Before someone gets a bunch of WP:UPPERCASE on my shoe, please note, I am not talking about what our policies technically permit us to do -- I am talking about what actually makes sense to do, as grown adults who engage positively with the world, and who write an encyclopedia in the context of all in which we live and what came before us. jp×g 🗯️ 21:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Check the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and follow the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really just posting the same reply to different comments without reading them? jp×g 🗯️ 23:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t WP:BLUDGEON delete votes by copy-and-pasting the same text whenever someone votes for a merge or delete. SMG _chat 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Written like someone who was paid by Big Capacitor, possibly even Big Diode... very suspicious Artem P75 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment Rob Roilen (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

the article is clearly made to attack Trump, it does not directly call Trump a fascist but it very clearly backs up one side whilst actively trying to discredit the other, very bias article please remove ASAP Gremlin742 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues such as these don't require deletion, you shouldn't bring a gun if you need a hammer. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should at least be heavily rewritten so it is not bias propaganda against one side, but if that doesn't happen then it should be deleted Gremlin742 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether or not it happens, its about whether or not it CAN happen. If the issue with an article CAN be fixed, deletion is entirely unnecessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reason this article exists is because lots of independent sources have been able to draw valid and logical between Trump's actions and those of historic fascists, and because recording such information in Wikipedia is valuable and constructive. Comparisons between Kamala Harris and communism doesn't exist (yet) because Kamala's actions and beliefs don't make a strong case for legitimate comparison to historic communists like Stalin. "The left are communists" is a tried and true attack used by the right for many years, and the same can be said with the left and "the right are fascists" (although not as commonly used).

As for WP:NPOV, the article could definitely use a good touch-up, but it is practically impossible to compare X to Y without readers noticing a visible or perceived bias towards whether the comparison is appropriate, warranted, fair, neutral, etc. Neutrality certainly isn't helped by the fact that "fascist" and "communist" have been adopted into the repertoire of insults for a lot of people, but I believe the article is worth keeping. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article is more a propaganda piece for the USA election than a WP article. It does not have a NPOV. Most (majority) of the sources are from strongly biased organizations: The definition of neutrality should take the population into account, rather than the left leaning legacy media. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
Neutral point of view issues are not grounds for deletion on their own. This article is not solely an attack page, and can be edited to be from a more neutral stance. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Labeling Donald Trump as a "fascist" is legitimate.

Generally, fascism is a far-right authoritarian ideology that promotes;

Racial and ethnic nationalism
Centralization of power
Suppression of dissent, and often the identification of enemies within society to rally the populace.

So we continue to debate whether Trump fits this label due to his authoritarian rhetoric, attacks on public institutions, divisive rhetoric against perceived "enemies," and his apparent disregard for established norms.

However, while Trump has exhibited some behaviors associated with authoritarianism (e.g., undermining the press, rejecting election results), ~~he has not instituted a fully centralized~~, authoritarian state with absolute power. So that his actions fall short of full-blown fascism.

QalasQalas (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aside from this appearing to be AI generated (according to 10 different detectors), I don't see the point you were attempting to make here. Everyone could spend an eternity comparing person X to fascism, communism or any other ideology

Make no mistake, I also believe Donald Trump is very comparable to a fascist. But we cannot undermine WP:NPOV just because we have the impression he is comparable to one. Millions disagree, making it a view at the end of the day, not a factual statement. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "millions disagree" how Wikipedia determines a factual statement? Millions believe the moon landing was faked. To stay within the realm of US politics, millions believe that Trump won the 2020 election. 2601:600:CB00:B0F0:949B:4319:E991:38C1 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a place for civil discussion and is it happenstance that the first edit you make calls for the deletion of a page concerning trump and fascism by attacking & name calling liberals. Wikipedia is not a rw echo chamber. Nohorizonss (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia rule books as many who have commented here are. I am just a regular user of the website. In my opinion, it would be wise to delete this article. When it comes to comparison between two ideologies (in this case fascism and Trump's beliefs and actions) it would take an unbiased person to deliver a satisfyingly neutral summary of the situation due to the potentially endless angles from which the comparison could be made, all of which are important in understanding the issue. This page is almost destined to be stained by bias, whether intentionally or not, and there's no reason the readers of Wikipedia who are interested in this subject cannot/would not simply use this website to research fascism and Trump separately in order to make their own comparison and analysis. That's my two cents at least. 66.177.187.250 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete

This piece is an attack page. It is highly suspicious that it has surfaced now, less than a week before the 2024 election, and is highly biased against Trump to begin with.
The subject matter is highly controversial and inflammatory. Throwing terms like "Fascist" and "Nazi" around during an election campaign can even be considered to be dangerous. Donald Trump has been targeted in two assassination attempts, and these can be, in part, attributed to the labels given him by his political opponents.
Accusations of "fascism" and "nazi" can be construed as Libel. The terms are so charged with meaning that they tend to "other" the person at which they're targeted. They are similar to labeling someone a "pedophile" or as a litany of any other number of heinous criminals.
Appearance of bias. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is intended to be neutral and non-biased. If this article is kept, or worse, speedily kept, then it will end up broadcasting to the world that the consensus of Wikipedia's community as a whole is very much against Trump and his supporters' side of the political aisle. This is not what Wikipedia was created to do. If Wikipedia even has an appearance of bias, then that will damage Wikipedia even more than it has been damaged over the last few years to begin with.
NPOV Violation. The article is worded to give an impression of neutrality, however the "criticisms of the comparison" section is far smaller and has far fewer citations than the other sections of the article. Far more time has clearly been spent on the arguments in favour of the comparison than against. This is not neutral.
Lack of Reliable Sources:

Many of the citations used in the article are attributed to opinion pieces. Regardless of whether the source uses the term, "analysis", "opinion", "editorial" or other words, an opinion is just that - an opinion. Just because person X says "Donald Trump is a fascist" doesn't make it so. It also fails to make it so when person X writes an opinion piece analyzing Trump's actions themselves and claims Trump to be a fascist. Whether Trump is a fascist or not should not be left for Wikipedia's editors to determine, but for the individual voters themselves.
The poll cited by ABC news in the Lede is also highly unreliable, particularly since ABC is under extreme scrutiny for bias in terms of how they conducted themselves in the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump earlier in the campaign. When you go through to the actual information of the poll itself, you can see that the data is highly massaged and twisted to produce the misleading results published on the wikipedia page. 49% of Americans do NOT think "Trump is a fascist", for example, only 44% think Trump is a facist. 5% think BOTH Harris AND Trump are fascists, however this key detail is left out, as is the percentage of Americans who think Kamala Harris is a fascist.

To summarize: This article is not written with a neutral point of view, even when it contains a small section of "criticisms" of the point of view, is poorly timed in concert with the upcoming election, may put an individual or individuals in physical danger, and thus needs to be speedily deleted.Steven Britton (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

off topic

@Steven Britton: Having they/them pronouns does not constitute a conflict of interest. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please remove that personal attack, those things aren't welcome here. SMG _chat 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a personal attack. I worded it very carefully to avoid an appearance of it being a personal attack. The use of the pronouns can, and does, in this politically-charged environment, bring the author's own motivations into question. I am sure that they are a perfectly decent and upstanding person. I am also sure they have a set of opinions that may, or may not, be in sync with the rest of us. That being said, it is very reasonable and objectively true that a specific set of opinions of a certain community is very strongly linked to the use of pronouns. Which is the basis behind the need to call their motivations into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I use gender-neutral pronouns online (despite my name). Does that make me biased? No! SMG _chat 20:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to focus on that one particular point to invalidate every other point I made, I guess that's up to you. The fact remains, there's a perceived link between use of pronouns and political bias. I have never said there actually was a bias, just that there is an appearance of one. Steven Britton (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY RESPONSES. CENSORSHIP HAS NO PLACE HERE. I HAVE REMOVED THE POINT THAT YOU DID NOT LIKE - AS ACCURATE AS IT WAS TO BEGIN WITH. THE OTHER ARGUMENTS STAND FOR THEMSELVES.

Just because you don't "like" or "agree" with something I said in terms of linking item A to ideology B does not invalidate the point that there does exist a link, and that link, even if not true in a specific case, can and does create an appearance of bias and call motivation into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of bias because of their gender identity will not help you. BootsED (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to adhere to Wikipedia's personal attack policy will get you blocked, no matter the context. SMG _chat 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Play nice, we don't care how people identify here. Bias can be discussed without the nasty words. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to play nice. I removed this section because it distracts from the rest of this discussion, and I have also removed the part of my above arguments for “speedy delete” that was contentious. The others restored it for some reason. I have my own suspicions, but you will have to ask them why they decided to restore it. Steven Britton (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also did not see my original statement, I suspect.

I think it’s noteworthy that a discussion was opened on the admin page about “personal attacks” (which did not occur, and certainly not intended) as well. The motivation behind that decision is something I am also wondering about. In the spirit of good faith, I leave it to them to share their reasoning - or not, as they see fit. Steven Britton (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Steven Britton (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above (not including the discussion right above this), very much violates WP:NPOV. Changing the article name to Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism does help, but it's still not good. - RockinJack18 20:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is AfD the place to debate neutrality of an article? It's sourced mostly to RS... There's a "story" here, not sure why this needs to be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was at the quasi-request of another editor, who is not extended-confirmed. I'm now regretting this due to their above comments, but withdrawing it would just make it worse. SMG _chat 20:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be withdrawn, as it's still an important discussion to have, even if the original suggestion for nomination may have been in bad faith. - RockinJack18 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is getting ridiculous. I went in with the intention to removed the statement, but you took it upon yourself to alter my statements, replacing them with “personal attack removed”, and, then, when I removed everything associated with the comment you didn’t like, you went and filed a complaint over on the admin page, and you are STILL going on about it here. Steven Britton (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep (with exceptions)~~ Keep (with exceptions) - As the person who moved the article to its current title, I see the value in an article such as this one. However, I do recognize that some work needs to be done in order to bring it to an acceptable quality. Notably: 1) Opinion pieces (though very few in number relative to the total number citations) should be removed. 2) The title should be changed to a better suited title (see ongoing RMV), 3) Additional citations in regards to criticism of the topic of this article should be added. I will reiterate what I stated in the RMV. This page has some notable aspects, but I can also see an argument for a merge into the main politics of DT article. I currently do not support a merge (I am indifferent to it). I do not support draftifying it until the election is over, as that would set a precedent for political articles. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quickly note that I'm not sure if a speedy keep is warranted here, since 3 (not including above's fiasco) people have voted to delete it. I'll step back now. :) SMG _chat 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, updated — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been, as the nomination did not actually present an argument in favor of deletion and during the first hour of the debate neither did anyone else. I think we're snowball territory now though, which is essentially the same. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree the amount of opinion or "newsy" articles need to be trimmed back, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies, I'm sure even more of them not used here. Also, a lot of peer reviewed studies are not inline citations but merely "further reading". Except maybe for since mid 2024, studies generally take a long time to compile and many former administration officials calling him fascist is obviously noteworthy enough on its own. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sure, its controversial and needs some work, but it includes a fair amount of relevant information and is well sourced. Just because there is not as much content (or sources?) against the idea does not prove NPOV. I see no reason to delete. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think its NPOV to cover the range of topic-expert opinion on this, Wikipedia isn't endorsing any particular view merely by mentioning that such views exist. Wikipedia isn't censored, I don't think we should avoid coverage because it offends certain people. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that this page has even been permitted on Wikipedia in the first place is exactly the reason people mock this encyclopedia and it has a reputation of being grossly unreliable and biased. It is baffling that anyone with any impartial frame of mind whatsoever would view a page with content such as this acceptable on Wikipedia, or in case, to contain information befitting an encyclopedia at all. I can see that people have claimed that this article is not biased and is not an opinion piece but is simply a comparison - again, any person with any impartiality about them at all can clearly see this is not the case. And looking through such a lens so distorted that one could not view this as biased, or an opinion, and that it really is just a comparison - in what world is such a comparison necessary to be in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia should present information about a person, unbiased, and free from opinion, leaving it then up to the reader to decide an opinion for themselves. We do not need agenda pushing content, whether it is for, or against.

Artem P75 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You might be interested in checking the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and following the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my comment above:

So would it then be fair then to create an article called "Comparison between the LGBTQI+ community and child grooming" ? As this is quite a widespread comparison and does not present any original opinion pieces? I'm sure one could find plenty of "WP:RS" on the matter, and it could then easily be "balanced" by including a section showing dissent on the topic.Just to be clear, I do not in any way hold this opinion at all and think it is a gross opinion to hold. I am simply using it as an example of why articles of this nature, especially when using your argument, should not be given any ground to stand on. It is a dangerous flood gate to open when we start allowing political beliefs and ideologies on Wikipedia. Artem P75 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article already exists at LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory, which details the history of the comparison and instances of it being made up to the present day. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The longer I am on this platform the more I lose hope in it. It seems as though anything these days can qualify as an article. What an absolute shame. Artem P75 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the thing, not everything is about bias, this topic has been widely reported on by numerous reliable sources, as has the LGBTQ grooming nonsense. Reflecting that rfeporting does not make WP biased. The timing is also not a mystery as General Kelly just spoke to the New York Times at length about this exact subject last week. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really have an issue with the timing, I really doubt that a Wikipedia page popping up will sway the election.

_

I understand that Wikipedia is reflecting reporting here, as in the article in the LGBTQI+ article (which I will now stop referring to so as to not give such an article any more notoriety) I just do not believe that such articles which are largely conspiracy theories have a place on what should be a place for the community to find reliable, unbiased information - even at the cost of limiting what topics are covered, not every topic needs to be covered.

_

It is very well known that media outlets push political narratives, even the most reliable of news outlets will more often than not take some form of political standing, what is happening here is no different. A news outlet that supports trump will say he is not a fascist and that the idea is preposterous, an outlet that does not support him will say the opposite - both are very likely incentivized to push such narratives (which I guess you could argue is a conspiracy theory in of itself) - but in any-case when it comes to matters like this there is very very rarely impartiality, if there was then all news outlets would be giving the same information and it is for this reason, on topics like this, I do not believe that news outlets should be considered WP:RS, because it basically just comes down to confirmation bias and running with whatever story supports your claims

_

Really, the claim is very far-reaching and clearly a trigger word to defame the man's character. To say either presidential candidates are fascists or communists etc. is completely out of touch with what those words truly mean and what people who have lived in leaderships of that nature have experienced Artem P75 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do make a good point that it is pretty usual for candidates to end up being called fascists by their political opposition, and I would agree with having the opinion columns from news outlets be removed. While that is more of a content issue at first, if the article gets substantially shorter once they are gone, I might support merging it to a wider article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem P75 You've already wrote this delete comment once above, it'd be best to retract 1 as to keep the discussion as concise as possible. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I will remove the initial comment Artem P75 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were referring to the duplicate !vote near the top... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again, I think I have now removed all of my duplicate comments Artem P75 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW keep This is clearly a very notable topic that has been reported on by innumerable reliable sources. If the article is biased or should be at another title, those are fixable problems not requiring deletion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Speedy Delete - The article does not have a NPOV. Most of the sources are also strongly biased organizations. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (with some exceptions) The page is well documented, researched, and uses high level secondary sources. Second, a good portion of the page is evidence of Trumps fascist tendences from those who have worked with President Trump at the highest levels of the US government. Third, a significant portion of the page discusses controversial language and actions attributed to President Trump. There's no way around this, the former president wanted to shoot protesters and kill members of his cabinet. The one section that may need deletion or some revision is the second on the boarder (which I think was already removed).

Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Ferdilouw (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an article which could set the trend with how we deal with controversial figures. Let's not get embroiled in non-WP:NPOV political views that only really serve to inflame certain groups. We have plenty of coverage on the Donald Trump article already of his authoritarian tendencies.

Aside from that, there is the test of time. In 20 years this article will likely look very dated and out of place on Wikipedia. We don't have articles discussing the various twists and turns of Elon Musk for this reason. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- That can be brought up in AfD in 2044 I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG as a standalone topic, and has been the subject of repeated political commentary. The article isn't (and shouldn't be) "Trump is a fascist, here's why", but discusses the history of the comparison between them, which is an encyclopedic thing to do. On the other hand, given the amount of similar articles about Trump and Foo that could be written, I could understand merging it to a wider article. But the amount of (current and potential) sources indicates that a merge might not allow us to go as in-depth into the topic as the sources allow us to. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article you referred me to above, although I disagree in that I believe it (and articles of this nature in general) should be deleted I do agree that:

_

If it is to remain, it should be from a more neutral lens and explore the history of the matter, how the conspiracy arose, why it has gained traction and remained as, what seems to be, in my opinion, a default opinion statement to use when there is nothing else to argue and just immediately resort to strong character defamation by comparing the man to hitler or a fascist. As it stands this article is just a poorly written opinion piece - perhaps if it were better written, more balanced, and provided the reader with the history of the matter and the understanding that "there is a conspiracy theory that trump is a fascist" rather then here is a obviously biased article comparing trump to fascism, "heres why trump is a fascist" - it would be more suitable.

_

Again, I propose deletion but do believe you raise a good point should the article remain and feel as though this should be the format for articles of this nature, although in my opinion such articles do not have a place on Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike one of your comments, voting twice can create confusion at the end of a discussion period. SMG _chat 23:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "conspiracy theory" is a neutral way to put it either, at least it isn't how sources (even those disagreeing with the assessment) seem to call it. But you are right that an article focusing on the history of the comparison and the reasons that led to it would be ideal, although, from my impression, the article mostly does that already. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic.Andre🚐 00:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about Donald Trump. We don't have "Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism" or "Comparisons between Putin and fascism" because these people — however close to fascism they are — do not have the same hate fixation by liberal Americans that Trump has. I believe that merging will make the voice of the article sound less like that of an American SJW (social justice warrior) and allow neutral encyclopedic coverage of the topic at hand. Cheers Historyexpert2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not having articles about Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism and Comparisons between Putin and facism says nothing about the actual article. The article is written from a neutral point of view, if this article directly called Trump a facist, that would be one thing. This article simply documents a very common comparison made in American politics, and has been made by both the right and the left. It's certainly notable and is needed for a full coverage of contemporary American politics. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not agree that titling an article "Comparisons between ________ and fascism" and then packing it with examples of sensational language describing the person as a fascist is meant to, in essence, call the person a fascist?

The lede contains the claim that "49% of American registered voters see Donald Trump as a fascist", which immediately primes the reader and skews the framing of the article. This claim comes from an online poll of only 2,392 people, conducted by Ipsos, a company with a recognized left-of-center bias. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nomination is 100% politically motivated. Great Mercian (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination wasn’t politically motivated, my reasoning is on behalf of others. I’m a democrat. :) SMG _chat 12:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm a Labour voter. Great Mercian (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point he is putting across is that you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS. o Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for a week to 10 days, and then reconsider. Surely that would assuage accusations that this page intends to sway votes. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Biased articles like these is why many reasonable people hate Wikipedia. Nuke it. Amin (Talk) 07:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems a widely covered topic in WP:RSs and, I think, the article does a good balancing the major viewpoints in those sources (which is what WP:NPOV actually says to do). You may disagree on that last point, but that is the sort of dispute worked out through normal talk page discussion and not at and AFD (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). We are WP:NOTCENSORED for the benefit of a political campaign (or the feelings of Elon Musk). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many RS, maybe cut down on opinion pieces. Also, move peer reviewed studies from "Further reading" to inline citations. The title is good as it is, "Donald Trump and fascism", which is what it was before, is too vague.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not a reason to delete an article unless we are dealing with an attack page or a BLP violation. There's more than enough coverage over the last few years on the matter for it to pass WP:GNG; I don't think that WP:LASTING is in question here either, on the same grounds. While I do agree with JPxG's views above that we have too many articles on Trump that are probably not of lasting significance (the golf article stands out to me, for instance), I disagree that this article falls into the same category. Keep. Java Hurricane 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. NPOV violations can be fixed with through enough editing. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may not be an original take, but to reiterate, this is an encyclopedia. We document what is written and spoken in culture as well; this means that this article has a very warranted merit to exist because the word of mouth and political discourse around Donald Trump has heightened towards a discussion about him and fascism. It may have just bounded to the mainstream now, but for the past couple years, this has been happening too. The article has a place here. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourced to RS, could perhaps use a re-write, but that's not a reason to delete it. I see no issues with notability nor with the sourcing used. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If this was an exercise in baseless, political name calling, I would be calling for a speedy deletion. However, the article puts in context many of the things that Trump himself said that he believes, plans to do or has done. The article has been careful not to include many of the superfluous "examples" littered throughout social media, most of which is clearly politically motivated. As a libertarian, I support Trump's right to believe and say what he wants but I also support the author's right to aggregate the numerous, informed examples which support the overall thesis of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skish3 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)— Skish3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective, politicized, unqualified opinionated analysis by political opponents, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. There's probably more I could add, but not much more than what's already been said about this process. Atsme 💬 📧 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is simply remarking on a well-publicized and non-fringe controversy, which does not come from political operatives but the media itself (and a full half of the American people). I see nothing POV about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only way to violate WP:NPOV here would be to state bluntly that Trump is (or isn't) a facist. The article is well supported by WP:RS, and a criticism section is included so both POVs are represented.estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article has WP:RS supporting them, and I don't see any uncivil name-calling or any other bullshit in the article. There is no valid reason to delete the article. If election related articles were speedy deleted for "swinging opinions to a certain side", then Wikipedia wouldn't be able to write a single modern election article. No matter how much there is an attempt to follow WP:NPOV, someone will end up finding a way to criticize it, just like how Wikipedia has long been criticized for bias. This AfD is just stretching unnecessarily to allow room for more ANI threads over personal attacks, and simply is an uphill battle of pushing the snowball up with more ANIs until the snowball melts and it's all over. I really don't like how this AfD is heading to the drama tunnel. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR - WP:NPOV issues aren't usually solved by just deleting everything, and I don't see how this article is an attack page or anything. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "name-calling" is referring to a person as a fascist, though. And then using blatantly biased sources to cite the claim.

There have been numerous examples of commentators comparing Democratic candidates to socialists or communists - should they all have their own Wikipedia articles? Rob Roilen (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend how widely, and persistently, discussed such claims were in WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, such as reliable newspapers, academia, etc., (and not primarily opinion pieces). If you think such coverage exists write it. However, the existence of other articles on similar topics of an article is not a reason to keep or delete (per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(updated) Comment ~~- we have 31 for keep (including 2 WP:SNOW), 13 for delete (not including the since-blocked user and duplicate vote), 2 for merge, 1 for draftify.~~
Arguments made for deleting: NPOV
Arguments made for keeping: NPOV is not a deletion issue and not present, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth
Arguments made for merging to Trumpism: 'WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK that fails WP:CFORK' and Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article Superb Owl (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not votes, so the amount of arguments made for keep or delete isn't relevant -Samoht27 (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - updated summary to focus on arguments made, not votes/# of comments Superb Owl (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While I agree with the person above who said wiki has a strong left wing bias; I also think this is a signifiant aspect of a major politician, a former and possibly future US president. MisawaSakura (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PLEASE NOTE:

Wikipedia:Deletion process: "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes." AND WP:DCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Artem P75 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Does this really need its own page? It's WP:NEGATIVESPIN that will very difficult to balance WP:BLPBALANCE and protect from becoming an attack page. The title violates WP:NPOV & WP:BLPSTYLE opposed to a neutral title like Political ideology of Donald Trump or something similar to that. -- BaomoVW (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plainly not NPOV Rob Roilen (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the above comments identify issues that can be fixed by editing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Trumpism This article’s topic is framed in a way that ensures that the overwhelming majority of “relevant” sources are coming from people who hate Trump. When writing articles that deal with contentious subjects (and doubly so for contentious BLPs), I think we do need to be careful that our article topics don’t essentially lock out reliable sources from one side of a controversy. I believe that merging this article into the Trumpism article is most in line with our policies on NPOV. (For the record, I’m worried about the precedent that keeping this article up under its current title could set for other, unrelated articles. My vote is in no way motivated by support for the former president). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spirit of Eagle: the overwhelming majority of “relevant” sources are coming from people who hate Trump. Citation needed on that - many of these sources are also considered to be quality reliable sources as per past discussions at WP:RSN, as tabulated at WP:RSP. Java Hurricane 05:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source that compares a 21st century politician to fascists is a source that takes an extraordinarily negative view on that politician. My issue here isn’t the reliability of the sources within the article, it’s that the article’s very topic means that the vast majority of relevant sources are going to take an extremely negative position on Trump. To be clear, I think that many of these sources are reliable and should be cited in an article about Trump’s ideology. However, this should be done in a way that doesn’t give them undue weight. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's obviously notable: for example, there is an entire debate on this topic in the academic journal Fascism. Although I don't personally think that fascism makes a good analysis, I do not find most of the delete/merge !votes to be consonant with our policies. Too much has been said about it to make a good merge into another article, since it would be UNDUE there. CRYBLP does not mean we should delete articles on notable topics. (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This topic isn't just a news or social media thing, it has been also extensively covered by political scientists, with fruits of their work being published in various journals. In Google Scholar and JSTOR, there is a sizable portion of journal articles describing comparisons between Trump's ideology and fascism. Some of these sources can be integrated into the article to make it more based on objective facts. Antitransphobe (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Hundreds of high quality sources talking about this issue. Sir MemeGod deserves a trout for wasting the community's time. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to WP:NPA and WP:AGF? Very surprised to hear that, especially from someone that I look up to. MemeGod _chat 19:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually have a look at the history of this discussion you will find that SMG raised the issue on behalf of many due to a large amount of requests on the talk page. They have stated that they remain impartial on the issue and that their political views are democrat So I do believe they remain impartial on the issue, and they have certainly not wasted anyone's time, if you again take the time to review the history of the topic. I think you will also find that while these sources in themselves are generally WP:RS, you will also find that politically motivated news stations who caries a bias are far from reliable. Comparing Donald Tramp to fascism, or on the other hand Biden or Harris to communism is sad, uneducated, and done in ignorance of the real weight that those words historically carry. Anyone claiming either political parties are fascist or communist are also uneducated and ignorant on the historical weight of those words and are obviously using them as strong trigger words to discredit someone or associate someone with something so horribly negative and showing a clear and obvious bias against who they are claiming to be those things. "But some actions meet the dictionary definition" or "there has been academic study on this" If we wrote articles exact to every dictionary definition Wikipedia would be more of a mess than what it already is. Dictionary definitions are not perfectly exact or specific and should be considered in light of the history to understand them properly. Academic studies, especially on political topics, often carry a strong amount of bias and will use specific sources to support their own view points - unless the topic of the academic paper is something of real research like the discovery of a new sustainable fuel source for example - matters such as this are purely opinion pieces. Artem P75 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Short summary, the two main reason are that the article is just so far away from being neutral that its beyond saving and that the timing, this close to the election makes it hard to believe that the person that wrote it even tried to make it neutral, so clearly it is conflict of interest.

I have spent pretty much time on this topic and it has been an interesting journey. I first went to read through the abstract on the first page of results from google scholars, surprisingly it was very hard to find these academic people that call Trump a fascist, many was talking about the Trump movement and his rhetoric, but not about Trump himself. It was on the other hand very easy to find the opposite, sources that said he was not a fascist. for example a here: "Discussing whether Trump himself is a fascist may not be the most fruitful endeavour. Trump may be many things; a narcissist with a grandiose sense of self, a compulsive confabulator, a populist charlatan, but there is not much to indicate that he is politically conscious, or even interested enough to have adopted an ideology of any sort, including fascism" Mattias Gardell, Professor at the Centre for Multidisciplinary Studies on Racism, University of Uppsala. source so for me the first sentence of the article "There has been significant academic and political debate over whether Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, qualifies as a fascist" is really far from what I found, after reading all these abstracts.

Next step I went through the sources from this quote of the article "During his 2024 presidential campaign, a growing number of scholars, historians, commentators, politicians, former Trump officials, and generals have described Trump as a fascist". This was really surprising, because very few of the sources said that Trump was a fascist, it was similar as with the google schoolar articles, many called his rhetoric fascist, but very few said that Trump himself was a fascist. According to me Wikipedia should write what the sources says and I think this is not the case here. One funny thing was that one source doesn't even mention the word "fascism", it talks about "Authoritarian", for me it is a hell of a stretch to say that it is the same thing.

So now we come to the main problem with this sort of article. If you compare someone with something that is both pretty vague defined and something that literally no one will say that they are themself, we will easily get a bad article. Most people that will edit this sort of article are those that already agree that Trump would be a fascist, I think that is one reason it will be almost impossible to make this article neutral.

Last thing, that poll is just so ridiculous, quote: "49% of registered voters consider Trump to be a fascist", for me that has to do a lot with that fascist is not only political term, it's also an insult. /Bro (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’Speedy Keep’ and i propose that all delete votes should get a 1 week block on WP: Competence is required grounds. This is obviously a notable topic whether you agree he is fascist or not. The fact that it is an “attack” is such a spurious reason for removing scholarly research and information that has been exhaustively covered in the news media. We have pure political attack pages like the canard that Obama is from Kenya; Trump’s fascism has received even more coverage, especially scholarly attention, and has the benefit of actually being true, in addition to its indisputable notability and widespread academic and public attention. Please retire from the project if you voted delete. You do not understand what an encyclopedia is.68.196.5.168 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)— 68.196.5.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't get to attack other people or ask to block them because they disagree with you or !vote differently than you do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1. I promised I’d stay away from this discussion, but words like these shouldn’t be said about others. IP clearly isn’t assuming good faith (which I suggest you read). MemeGod _chat 21:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this statement and others, "i propose that all delete votes should get a 1 week block on WP: Competence is required grounds" Fantastic Mr. Fox is violating Polemic policy and also using wiki:bullying (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiBullying). The reply should be deleted by an editor. And they should be reprimanded. These replies that lack neutrality and don't check bias don't facilitate informed discussion. Stono rebellion (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, @Fantastic Mr. Fox did not write the above statement, they only added a note to the IP's comment. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that statement can be qualified by saying that "in X poll, Y% of respondents said that ....". And adding one or two other polls with different figures would be NPOV. Lamona (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trump's association with, support from, imitation of and idolization of both historic fascists and modern-day self-identifying fascists is well documented. Although Trump has not yet achieved the authoritarian power to be "fully" and indisputably fascist, numerous historians and scholars of fascism have noted that Trump's rhetoric and image projection are a strong fit with aspiring fascist rulers of the past. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Largely Legible Layman: well said and so true.MisawaSakura (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This article clearly does not have a WP:NPOV. The highly controversial opinions about such deeply contentious, divisive, and subjective issues are inappropriate for what should be an impartial and unbiased encyclopedia. It engages in WP:NEGATIVESPIN of a political figure and should most certainly be deleted. --Alistair McBuffio (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article clearly covers a notable topic that's been covered by both the media & academics. I'm personally unimpressed by the delete votes I've read as most seem to be cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or broadly pointing at WP:NPOV with little else of substance. I'd also like to point out that WP:NEGATIVESPIN is not a reason for deletion & specifically states that it doesn't inherently make something an attack page. Any concerns regarding neutrality can be worked on, but currently does not warrant outright deletion. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change the name. My initial sense was that this violated WP:NOTESSAY based largely on the article title, but after more review (and looking for other similar articles) I think this is an encyclopedic topic which passes GNG, but is in desperate need of a name change. Fortunately that's already under discussion, which I only realised after the fact... SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rationale for deletion is flawed, even if some content is forked there is such large and global coverage of the subject that it could easily be expanded and made different (have not checked how similar this and Trumpism are). It is expected that Trump sympathizers can be distressed by this inflattering comparison, but these is nothing to do about it as even reputable academics are involved in this public debate about Donald Trump's relation to fascism. Lappspira (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep ~~either to Trumpism or Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. This does mean reducing the content, but I feel that would reflect the proper perspective on this.~~ This article is too long to merge to other articles, and could be listed as "further info" in the Trumpism and the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. Of course, there may be much more to say after the election, should he win, but that would then be best in an article about his presidency. Lamona (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This political topic is getting a lot of coverage in reliable sources, has long-term historical importance, and is important for voter decision-making now and in the future. I just listened to a half-hour with Jason Stanley on the topic [7], who also has a whole book on the subject. Some interesting historical correspondances aren't mentioned in the article, so if anything, it seems like it could be expanded. A lot of "delete" votes seem to be knee-jerk rejections of any mention of widespread criticism of a favored political leader. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think referring to either party leader as a communist or fascist is uneducated and ignorant of the history of what those words mean and the people who experienced real communism or fascism. It is sad that people genuinely think Trump is a fascist or Harris or Biden are communist. Those words seem to have entirely lost their historical meaning and are just thrown around as insults to discredit a candidate that someone does not like - both candidates have their faults, both have their positive attributes - but neither are communist or fascist. If everyone claiming these things looked at the historical suffering under communist or fascist regimes, a lot more people would laugh at these claims. Trump has already been in power, where was the fascism? Who suffered under his horrific fascist reign? Where was the terrible suffering under Biden's horrible communist government? I have no doubt people suffered hardships under both government's terms - but to claim that either was communist or fascist is a mockery of those who have truly experienced and suffered under fascism or communism. Just because someone wrote a book on it or published an academic paper does not change the fact that those are opinion pieces, and ignorant ones at that. Artem P75 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Artem P75, your opinion on Trump's four-year presidency are irrelevant, and likewise your opinion on Biden. I'm not sure if anyone is claiming in the article that Trump is a fascist (and "comparisons between DT and fascism" is not the same as "DT is a fascist"), but your comment, "Just because someone wrote a book on it or published an academic paper does not change the fact that those are opinion pieces, and ignorant ones at that", profoundly misunderstands the entire academic publishing industry. No, an academic book or article is NOT an "opinion piece", and if they are academically published then they are likely not "ignorant". And if they are academically published then they are exactly the kinds of things we should base our articles on. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies The ignorance comes from the fact that there are claims that either politicians are communist or fascist. In this case comparing trump to fascism or to Hitler. It is a mockery, and yes, very ignorant of the history of the reigns of power that they are actually drawing comparison to and the immense suffering that people went through under those reigns. If you go and look at real fascism, not just the word that people throw around to discredit or insult someone, you would surely understand the point that I am trying to make. Sure, I will agree with you that my opinion regarding either leader is irrelevant as it is purely just an opinion, what i do not think is irrelevant is the fact that the words "fascism" and "communism" have become so widely used as political arrows that the definition is becoming so diluted that they may as well nowadays be synonymous with "that person is very bad," which is sad. And yes, I do still believe that academic publishings on such topics are opinion pieces - just because it is published in an academic journal, or as a book, does not inherently void its status as an opinion. It is very, very easy to take on an opinion, do your due research and find supporting evidence to substantiate one's hypothesis - and, when done by capable authors, will likely be published as a welcome contribution to the academic literature. It does not however change the fact that it is someones opinion on the matter, regardless of how well researched or written it is, otherwise we may as well regurgitate every point of view that can be found as published in an academic journal onto Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Artem P75, "just because it is published in an academic journal, or as a book, does not inherently void its status as an opinion"--sorry, but you don't understand how such publications work at all, and clearly don't have much experience with academic publishing. Please see WP:CIR. And I'll just add that comparing Trump's policies and claims to fascist expressions is actually a thing that apparently a bunch of academics have done, as well as seasoned scholars and commentators, and if the publications are there, in peer-reviewed academic publications and other reliable sources, it's possibly a valid topic, your opinions and ideas notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Drmies I have quite a significant amount of experience in academic publishing and academia in general thank you. An opinion is an opinion regardless of how well written or researched it is, including the fact that it was published or not. A comparison can be drawn either way, for either side of the argument - the fact that there can be more than one side of the conversation quite literally means that it is an opinion. It is not as simple as factually stating, for example, "To those without color blindness, the sky appears blue." Just because a paper may use suggestive, rather than conclusive terminologies such as "drawing from the evidence discussed it can be concluded that Donald Trump could potentially have fascist ideologies" does not make it any less of an opinion. Tip-toeing around, and using different phraseology to make a statement of which an entire publishing is based around, does not change it from a matter of opinion. Artem P75 (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Artem P75: I encourage you to listen to the half-hour with Jason Stanley linked above, and you can hear for yourself how well-researched such comparisons can be. While it's true a lot of people use the word "fascist" as an insult or just to mean "horrifically bad", Stanley points out a lot of specific correspondences between the Nazis and Trump, such as discrediting the media, calling minorities "vermin", complaining that the blood of the country is being polluted by immigrants, controlling the movement of non-Christians (with the Muslim Ban), targeting LGBT people, controlling women's reproduction, etc. A "fascist" (when used in a well-informed way and not as a diluted insult) movement is a particular type of right-wing authoritarian political movement. It does not need to commit crimes against humanity, nor even actually take any sort of political power, to be accurately described as such. Our article Fascism goes into much more detail about the attributes of fascist ideologies. -- Beland (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think your well-reasoned argument points to somthing that is probably lost on a lot of people: Reliable sources are not calling Trump a fascist just to engage in name calling, there is a substantive and emerging body of well-researched work that shows these tendencies. There is no corresponding body of work showing that Harris or Biden or literally any other democrat up to and aincluding Bernie Sanders, is trying to move the country toward communism, because they are not and there is no credible evidence that they want to coming out of their own mouths or their campaigns. That actually is just name calling. You can't "both sides" every single issue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Just Step Sideways Thank you, I was more including the mention of Biden and Harris to convey that I try my best to remain impartial on these matters and am not taking my opinion because of my political ideologies. @Beland has raised some good points in his comment above that I have overlooked / not considered and will now have a look in to Artem P75 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Beland You raise good points, perhaps I have been too quick to dismiss this matter given the excessive use of the term "fascism" and the way it is so loosely thrown around. I will give the interview with Jason Stanley a listen, it may broaden my interpretation and perspective on the topic Artem P75 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close Strong consensus for keep and discussion is getting dreadfully messy. Great Mercian (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the 'strong consensus' to which you refer. Riposte97 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No strong consensus on either keep or delete IMO. I would personally maintain the status quo and leave it up. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per WP: SNOW This was an obvious keep from the beginning. the fact that anyone suggested that a well-established topic of academic research and popular media attention should be deleted from the encylopedia raises WP:Competenceisrequired concerns for all 'Delete' voters, especially the nominator. Nomination is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is high time that Wikipedia stopped kneeling to overly conservative editors who raise spurious concerns of this kind and abuse process to try to remove obviously notable information as "biased." This is not the place for you to debate whether Universities or the popular Media are "biased." Go become a university professor or journalist if you want to claim it is "biased" for notable academic sources and respected newspapers to discuss the topic of Trump and fascism. Notability is obviously met. We must stop pandering to bad-faith abuses of process like this deletion nomination. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a "bad-faith abuse" of the AfD process? I clearly said that I have no opinion on the issue, and filed the AfD on behalf of others who couldn't due to EC restrictions. Yet I still get called "biased" or an "IDONTLIKEIT" editor. (Sir MemeGod here, I went through a rename about an hour ago). EF⁵ 19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obviously highly notable topic. This deletion nomination is as if I nominated Super Bowl for deletion because I don't think sporting events are encylopedic or notable. This topic was always clearly not going to be deleted. No more than a handful of people, many of them trolls, voted to Delete. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling 11+ people "trolls" seems to be a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS. Comparing this to the Super Bowl is only partially relevant, as the Super Bowl isn't a potential WP:CFORK of anything. EF⁵ 19:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the "reasoning" givenn in the delete votes? One of them claimed that using pronouns constituted a conflict of interest. Even reading them charitably, the responses in favor of deletion mostly just say "it's an attack page!" and never dispute the fact that this is a widespread topic in mainstream media discussion and has received significant academic attention and hence has met the bar for notability. There is really no point to further discussion here as no delete vote raised an actionable cause for deletion. At most these claims are reasons to edit the content of the page (if they were even true); certainly none of the delete votes gave any reason for deleting the page. This whole discussion was a clear waste of time to appease bad faith arguments that never offered a justification for deletion or dispute of the notability of the topic. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the primary issues of the article is not what happens in the next 5 minutes, it is what happens only the dust has settled. The article will be firmly in the trenches for a very long time regardless of the outcome as it will have a tendency to drift to non-WP:NPOV view. Il also remind everyone here that WP:ONUS exists.

On a different note: To illustrate my current view, imagine a lone see-saw in a truly massive playground (in this case the millions of articles on Wikipedia). The article is the see saw. Currently, everyone here is balancing the see saw, utilizing it to ensure that it remains verifiable and the most neutral it can possibly be. But inevitably, there are other things to do in this playground, and the see saw is left alone.

This particular see saw has a problem though. Due to it's construction, it's centre of gravity with result in it resting on one side. Consequently, when left to it's own devices, it will inevitably become little more than a WP:ATTACK page. This means this article will need to be watched like a hawk for non-neutral content arrising. If Donald Trump wins the election, since most of us aren't necessarily in the mindset of a Trump supporter, monitoring this page is gonna be fuuuunnnn.

Now I wouldn't mind that if the article was of incredible importance, like Barrack Obama or any election article, but the article right now, to be honest, reads like the leftover of some really unnecessarily complex Youtube Shorts video idea brainstorming session. I don't see it getting much better than that either from it's current state, because it can only really be presented that way.

Even right now, the temptation is real to add an obligatory "So what do you think? Is Donald Trump a fascist?" to the tail end of the article.

That's just my view. I felt the need to explain it more detail. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this matters. This is a topic that has a considerable academic literature and a considerable literature in the popular media-- by definition, these are the reliable sources upon which an encylopedia relies. There was likely enough of a literature on this topic in 2016 prior to the 2016 election to warrant an article. Its omission reflects an unfortunate conservative bias in this encylopedia resulting from abuse of process by bad actors like the present deletion discussion, which is absolutely without merit and should have been closed immediately as Speedy Keep under WP:Snow when the delete votes offered no possible basis for removing the article. This is a clearly extremely notable topic. It is one of the most notable aspects of Trump's political "career. We have articles on controversies on other political figures that could far more reasonably be read as attack pages, such as Birtherism or other pure political smears that were never serious academic topics of debate. No offense, but your position is palpably absurd. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the question of deletion or provides an actionable ground for deletion. This article is not based on a You Tube shorts section; it's written about in scholarly works and reliable newspapers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you actually read the discussion you will notice that there are substantially more reasoning to your claims of "The responses in favor of deletion mostly just say "it's an attack page!"" Maybe take some time to put your own obvious biases aside and try and look at this from a NPOV with a rational mind. Artem P75 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the majority of delete arguments are complaints claiming NPOV, bias, propaganda, or some form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with most of those arguments lacking evidence to support their claims. They are also importantly, not policy based arguments.

Neutrality issues are not a reason for deletion, they're a reason to fix the article. The deletion process is for analyzing the topic's legitimacy, not the content's. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please please just stop. You're only demonstrating my point of how messy this discussion has gotten. Great Mercian (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is a policy based argument. Just because you don't like it or agree with it, doesn't mean that it isn't rational and valid - see: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I believe that the framing of this topic is a POV violation, if not the contents. It may amount to a WP:POVFORK. Anyone can slant an article by positioning it in such a way that it excludes balance. For example, the article 'Accusations that Barack Obama is a Communist Spy' would have a bunch of crackpot claims from the Limbaugh crowd by its nature, and relatively few direct refutations, because of the very specific framing.

As a sidenote, the current title is nonsensical, as one cannot compare a human to an ideology. One might accuse a person of adhering to an ideology...but that's a fight to have if this thing survives.

I see a bunch of editors above so convinced of themselves that they're comfortable attacking the competence and motivations of others. Aside from coming across as nasty people, they're sure to land themselves at ANI with that attitude. Riposte97 (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my comment under the mindset of 'this IP will respond with "So how is this relevant?", then not read WP:ONUS and bring up a WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST point'.

I was wasn't too far off from that assumption. If I were hypothetically to adopt the IP's line of arguing (not discussing), I could simply say "if it didn't look like YouTube Shorts brainstorming session, why would I say it is?". This might be fine in a political interview, but it falls flat here.

If someone can't make even an attempt to understand an opposing article without calling them 'palpably absurd' (i.e personally attacking them) they shouldn't be participating in an AFD. Is their a contentious topic label for US political articles? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain very slowly one more time so that even you might understand. I stated very clearly that the article clearly meets notability guidelines as it is a major topic of academic discussion and debate in reliable media sources. You repeatedly failed to raise a single germane point in opposition and babbled aimlessly to distract from the embarassing lack of substance or even a point to your argument. Please just stop unless you are going to address why you think the extensive scholarly and popular literature on this topic cited in the article fails to establish notability. Whats that? You can’t? Thought so. Cheers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't see anything here other than WP:IDNHT material from someone wanting to 'win' a debate (completely wrong attitude). It would be neat of you to withdraw the personal attack earlier. And perhaps, consider trying to edit an article other than a WP:CONTENTIOUS topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97 I meant specifically it is not a policy based argument for deletion (I was also referring to !votes that didn't back up their claims & only called NPOV), apologies if my phrasing seemed misleading. I don't understand your meaning behind WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT though, as I haven't really been arguing here, with half my comments being minor clarifications to others.

In regards to the title however, I don't agree with it either. it was originally just "Donald Trump and Fascism", but was moved against consensus to the current title. It has momentarily stuck due to this deletion discussion.

Finally, I agree that the discussion here needs to be more civil. Name calling & insults are pointless impediments to meaningful conversation. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a blatant violation of POV is a reason to delete an article. We are an encyclopedia, not a thread on Twitter or X nor a blog on Balloon Juice or Daily Kos. I actually agree with the intent of this page - Trump is a Fascist - but this is absolutely the wrong place. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t . It is a reason to edit an article. Nor have you pointed out what these alleged violations of NPOV in the article even are. Oh what’s that? There aren’t any? Thanks for playing. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is very extensive, serious discussion of this subject. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete it. --Tataral (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trumpism looks like a good place to include this content! That way, all of the well-sourced material (duly noted by the keep voters) is kept in the project and reused there and concerns from keep and delete voters – sources, PoV, onus – are resolved. Historyexpert2 (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Don John's Public Image page - I did a page search for the word "couch" to make sure no JD Vance hoaxes involving rubber gloves were mentioned here. I am very impressed, en Wiki! However, while Trump may be a cheat who has been convicted on tax evasion, for his -"because a prostitute is someone who'll love you, no matter who you are, or what you look like"- business with Stormy Daniels, and God knows what else, op-eds about Trumpty-Dumpty don't need to be taken encyclopediacally. Did Germans call Hitler evil until some hindsight opened their eyes? No! Hell, Trump rambling on about "they're eating the cats" and whatever else didn't need its own article, it felt right under the larger Springfield pet-eating hoax article. Not to say this doesn't belong, but it needs a home. Barnt Toust 00:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles about a POV are not necessarily POVforks, depending on whether they have been written to inform the reader rather than just proselytize the position that some editors want to give undue weight to. This article for one does a pretty good job at demonstrating that this POV is a significant topic of dicussion among several reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not Delete, then Merge/Redirect to Trumpism or perhaps better Rhetoric of Donald Trump, per WP:FORK; it seems that the content of this article could well fit into either one of these articles. Piccco (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a WP:POVFORK. If reliable sources state Trumpism is a fascist political ideology, then describe it as such at that article. And/or describe Donald Trump as a fascist at the Donald Trump article. (Potentially something such as "Donald John Trump is an American businessman, fascist, racist, and neo-Nazi politician who is the president-elect of the United States"?) If consensus can't be reached to describe Trumpism as a fascist political ideology at Trumpism, and consensus can't be reached to describe Trump as a fascist at Donald Trump, that would prove this is a POVFORK which by its existence gives WP:UNDUE weight to a particular viewpoint. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has plenty of sources that discuss how there is a perception of, and comparisons to, fascism. It doesn't matter whether that perception itself is neutral, only the article itself has to be balanced with NPOV. A couple of people mentioned how we should have equivalent pages for other political figures; we should IF it's being discussed to the same degree, with RS etc., but we're not discussing those pages here. Even if the page itself was NPOV, it's not so far gone that it needs deleting - WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article never states that Trump is a fascist, it only presents comparisons that allows the reader to draw the conclusion if he is or not. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (2nd nomination)

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

The meso-gamma designation has a clear definition, however it isn't marked on each Mesoscale Discussion individually. There's an OR problem when it comes to determining entry as to determine an entry in the list, barring a secondary source confirming the meso-gamma designation (which I don't believe exist on the list at the moment), the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors and I don't have to go into any more detail to let you know that's a bad idea. I'd accept if this article was completely rewritten with sources confirming each entry's inclusion but I'm not holding out hope this goes down as anything more than WP:LISTCRUFT, as much as I'd like to keep this article. Departure– (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – False statement was given in the nomination. "the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors" is a false statement. The definition is clear, as even described by the nominator. Just because the government doesn't mark them separately does not mean editors are "analyzing" it. I'd practically argue the basic principles behind WP:CALC & WP:DUCK. This list, simply put, is when the SPC confirms (1) an ongoing tornado or (2) 100+ mph winds. These are not analyzed by Wikipedia editors, as claimed by the nominator, but rather, literally editors looking at the NOAA text (cited obviously) where the NOAA forecasters (along with any RS media) say there is a tornado. To note, this article was kept following a previous deletion attempt for being "niche" and LISTCRUFT. Given the nominator acknowledged (1) there is a clear definition for this list's topic and (2) stated Wikipedia editors were violating OR (which has no evidence supporting that) and (3) this survived a previous AFD for being niche/listcruft, I see no new deletion reasons to try to overturn the previous consensus to keep this article.

RS media like this article from Forbes discussed the SPC issuance of one of the items on this list: "The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) even issued a mesoscale discussion—a small-scale, short term forecast—alerting the region that radar and environmental data indicated that the tornado was likely an EF-4 or an EF-5. Meteorologists usually don’t put out that kind of a statement while a storm is in progress, but the SPC closed the discussion with a harrowing, all-caps warning: “THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT.” While it may be a partially "niche" topic, it is clearly not OR violations and LISTCRUFT arguments were already under a "keep" consensus. No new deletion reasonings, in my point of view. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there's far too many "Is this a meso-gamma discussion" topics on the talk page and too many "revert if necessary but I don't think these are meso-gamma" edits that aren't reverted for what I see as fit for inclusion. I see too many gray areas for WP:DUCK (especially considering it's a policy on sockpuppetry and wouldn't hold water on original research). Not every case has a bold "THiS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT" in it's text. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(drive-by comment) This Forbes article is not reliable. It was written by a "Contributor" which is equivalent to user-generated content. See WP:FORBESCON. C F A 💬 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The duck test only applies to sockpuppetry and copyright violations. Not to article content like original research. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I don’t believe Forbes, especially “contributor” content from Forbes, is a reliable source. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think this article is very good for what it does and its more rare than a tornado emergency, meso-gamma is basically a small area so that just makes sense for the name meso-gamma mcd ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I myself almost nominated this for deletion too. And I have to disagree with WeatherWriter’s rationale here. And I’ll list the multiple reasons why this needs deleted below:

1. As the nominator points out; while the meso-gamma criteria is very clear cut, the SPC doesn’t mark them. In fact, the term “meso-gamma mesoscale discussion” is so obscure that I didn’t even know about it until I stumbled on this article.

2. Because it is so obscure; and because the SPC itself doesn’t even use the term in ANY of its discussions; it leads me to think that it isn’t the Storm Prediction Center determining which discussions are “meso-gamma”; it is Wikipedia making that determination. Which (unlike what WeatherWriter will tell you), would violate WP:OR and quite possibly WP:LISTCRUFT as well (although I’m not that familiar with the latter, so I won’t say for sure on the cruft part).

Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The ONLY keep argument that I might be okay with is if we renamed the title to something like “List of Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Discussions that concern individual tornadoes”; since that would remove the WP:OR problems. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that, since that would remove the “OR violation” (I don’t see one, but I know you and Departure see one). That is basically what meso-gamma discussions are anyway, so yeah, I would 100% support a renaming over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: Would this be something you could get behind? That topic would be well-sourced and clear any possible OR violations. If you do get behind it, then this AFD discussion could be speedy-closed and then the article instantly renamed and restructured appropriately. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure about that one. What connects an MD to a tornado event? I could see news linking watches to events but I'd be shocked if they knew what a mesoscale event. Barring that and obvious cases, there's still the problem of meso-gamma discussions being hard to define without OR (no matter how simple). Departure– (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoscale discussions are named by the Storm Prediction Center. Like actually, that is their formal name (see SPC Mesoscale Discussions. The Mesoscale Discussion text themselves (for those that are "meso-gamma" directly mention an ongoing tornado. There would be 0 OR as every aspect would be cited. The entire possible OR issue mentioned by You and Hurricane Clyde are on the "meso-gamma" aspect, not "mesoscale discussion", which is a very well-known/well-cited thing. For reference, the SPC has issued thousands of mesoscale discussions. This list, simply put, is those that mention ongoing tornadoes. "What connects an MD to a tornado event" is the text of the mesoscale discussion. For example, this right here is the mesoscale discussion referenced by the Forbes article. which states directly, "...confidence is high for a likely violent tornado. A long-track tornado is expected to continue..." Those are obvious to connect with damage surveys/articles over on the yearly tornado articles (for that tornado, 2020 Easter tornado outbreak#Bassfield–Seminary–Soso–Moss–Pachuta, Mississippi). Others include this Mesoscale discussion which directly states "Intense tornado (EF3+) ongoing" (for the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado...note, the mesoscale discussion is specifically mentioned in the article's "Storm development" section) or this Mesoscale discussion for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado which actually stated, "A strong to potentially violent tornado is ongoing and expected to continue for at least another hour".

In fact, now that I think about it, I highly support keeping the article and renaming/restructuring it to be specifically mesoscale discussions mentioning ongoing tornadoes. No OR issue and those specific mesoscale discussions are often used in other articles as references + actual descriptions in the article text. With that explanation, does that satisfy your possible OR concerns with a renaming Departure–? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, RS media does know what a "mesoscale discussion" is. I recommend going to Google, searching "Mesoscale discussion" and then going to the "news" tab. That will save me from linking the hundreds of articles mentioning them. For simplicity, here is an RS news article titled "What Is a Mesoscale Discussion?", so obviously, RS media does know what they are and can explain them, which would solve any "niche" topic arguments regarding a renamed/restructured list for any mesoscale discussion mentioning an ongoing tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The small scale topic of the article may get it brought back to AfD, but I wouldn't be too opposed to that if it kills the OR concerns. But either way, I'd advise waiting until this discussion closes before taking any restructuring actions. Departure– (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion theoretically could be closed now per [[WP:CSK|Wikipedia's Speedy Keep reasonings], since the only 3 !voting editors involved in the discussion all are not opposed to a rename/restructuring. The 7-day AFD doesn't need to continue unless you want it to. So, do you wish to withdraw the AFD nomination and let the restructure/rename occur, or, do you want to wait the full 7 days before that could occur? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–, the SPC does clearly say whenever the discussion concerns a single tornado. They just don’t use the “meso-gamma” wording.

But I am still going to support deletion; and just consider the renaming to be an acceptable alternative. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions; the article was retitled to fix its dash very shortly after the first nomination closed. (No opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Environment, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note quickly, the reason the first nomination of this article for deletion ended with arguments roughly stating that it passed notability guidelines due to secondary sourcing and that more sources would be added. However, if you look at most of the secondary sources, most are for the ratings of tornadoes / wind events themselves, not at all the meso-gamma discussions. The meso-gamma discussions are hardly notable in themselves, nor is sourcing for the meso-gamma designation easy to come by directly without interpretation much more volatile and subjective than WP:CALC was intended for. This is also why I'm not fully in support of reworking the article to specific tornadoes, and why maybe the article shouldn't have survived that first AfD discussion. OR and notability of the meso-gamma discussions themselves is the debate, not the notability of the events they're linked to. Departure– (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – in that case, my original delete !vote remains valid. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to completely change the direction of the page shouldn't be discussed here. If the article gets deleted, it gets deleted, and the new list can be WP:BOLDly created and challenged independently. See also WP:HIJACK, which, although not as blatant as the examples there, and guided by contributor's consensus, it's still better to make the page seperately. Departure– (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said @Departure–; my !vote to delete ain’t changing. I just threw out the move as an “acceptable alternative” that would solve the OR problem. Nothing will solve the LISTCRUFT problem. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I can understand @WeatherWriter‘s desire to keep the article. After all; he’s the one who created the article. I too would probably be passionate about keeping an article that I created. And would probably be real quick too !vote keep on the list of West Virginia tornadoes or the 2022 Appalachian floods article for that reason. But that still doesn’t change the fact that this is a potential OR violation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Woody

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

Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all automatically notable just for existing, and have to show reliably sourced evicence of passing one or more notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the attempted notability claim here is an unsourced table of awards from minor film festivals whose awards aren't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have sources. (And the most notable film festival in the table is one where it's pulling the "nominee for film festival award that was wide-open to every single film in the program and didn't actually curate any special shortlist of finalists" stunt that Wikipedia editors often pull to oversell a film's passage of "notable because awards" -- which, therefore, also cannot be an "inherent" notability freebie without sources explicitly stating that the film was actively "nominated" for the award either.)
The film, further, also cannot claim "inherent" notability just because you've heard of some of the people in the cast list -- notability is not inherited, so even a film with famous people in its cast still has to pass WP:GNG on its sourcing. A Google search, further, turned up nothing useful, finding only directory entries, primary sources and a single glancing namecheck of this film's existence as a prior work by the director in an article whose primary subject was a different later film rather than this.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage exists in various languages. See GBooks please. Mildly notable awards and nomination. Extremely notable cast and director. A redirect to the latter is totally warranted. Willing to improve this later. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did check Google Books: I'm not getting WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the film, I'm just getting glancing namechecks of its existence in filmographies and directories.

An award only supports a film's notability to the extent that said award can be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage that treats the award presentation as news. An award has to itself be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award only supports notability if it's referenced to WP:GNG-worthy media reportage, and does not support notability if it's either unreferenced, or referenced solely to primary source content self-published by a directly affiliated entity (such as either the film festival's own website or the film's own marketing materials). But the awards here are all completely unsourced, and my BEFORE searches did not find any GNG-worthy referencing that could be added to support the award claims.

"Nominations" also have to be properly supported by GNG-worthy media coverage, because that's highly prone to promotional manipulation. I see this happen all the time with the Toronto International Film Festival, for example: films frequently try to make the notability claim that they had been "nominees" for the People's Choice Award, but that's not an award that actually has "nominees" — every feature film in the festival program is automatically eligible for People's Choice by simple virtue of being present in the festival program at all, so being eligible for that award is not a meaningful or notability-bolstering distinction. There are obviously some exceptions, such as the Palme d'Or at Cannes or TIFF's Platform Prize, where the film played in a special competitive program that was curated to compete for a special prize that most other films at the festival weren't in contention for — for awards like that, "nomination" is a valid notability claim, but for a regular non-competitive "every film at the festival was automatically eligible for consideration" award, "nomination" is not a distinction, so an award nomination requires GNG-worthy sourcing to demonstrate that the award was a special competitive program with a curated shortlist of nominees, and not just an "every film in the program was automatically eligible for consideration" award.

Neither the notability of cast members nor the notability of the director constitute inclusion freebies that exempt a film from having to pass GNG just because there are notable people being wikilinked in the body text, either. Bearcat (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now sufficiently well-"GNG-worthy"-sourced to show the featurette meets NFILM ("The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career, for example") and GNG (has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources) and that there's no apparent reason for deletion. See for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons

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

Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete other articles First, note on the reason this article was created. The material in this article was transferred from MeTV Toons, which made the article as noted "too long to comfortably read the main article". This article/list is not any different from others on Wikipedia. It contains references provided by other editors for verification. This article is directly the same as others under the category: Lists_of_television_series_by_network. Please visit this category to confirm. If we limit articles/lists to original programming and not list rerun programs, we will need to delete a lot of articles/lists such as ION or Antenna TV for example. Thus, what do we consider as "notable"?. This is not the only channel that is currently listed on Wikipedia as per quote "Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability." Msw1002 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: standard list of programmes by network,: can be trimmed, but at least please see Category:MeTV_original_programming. WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: previous recent AfDs for similar lists have resulted in deletion or redirection: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Zee Bangla, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by HTV (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by QTV (Indonesia), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pogo (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Colors Kannada, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Green Entertainment Fram (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I participated in at least one of the ones you linked (and a relist would not have hurt in that particular case) and I would obviously have !voted Keep at the other ones if I had been aware of the discussions.

But those 6 AfDs -FXIW: One was in 2009- do not invalidate the arguments above and 1) the tremendous majority of similar no-consensus/kept/unchallenged pages is a hint that 2) should anyone take further actions to delete similar pages a more general discussion would perhaps be useful. At the very very very least Redirects would indeed seem to be an obvious ATD in each and every case except when he network has no page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, didn't mean to include that 2009 one, wanted to list to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by Vinh Long TV (THVL). I'll leave it in the list, but it of course is no evidence of any recent AfD trend on the matter. But on the other hand I see no evidence for "the tremendous majority of similar no-consensus/kept" articles (unchallenged ones are just that, nothing more or less). For channels with little or no original programming (something like the above AfDs or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Pop (UK & Ireland)), the result is nearly always delete / redirect. The keeps are usually for major channels with lots of original programming, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by ITV, and I wouldn't argue for deletion of such ones. Fram (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Illinois. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Largely acquired programming with next to no original content. Also inadequately sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I might be missing something here, but where does it say originals has notability, but reruns don't? The owner of this channel Weigel Broadcasting has better viewership than Hallmark, A&E networks or AMC that do have original programming. https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/the-gauge/#viewing-by-distributor

One thing I do say about this list article, it does need some cleanup. However, deletion doesn't sound correct. Rivertown (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every television channel that exist doesn't get to list every single program they show. These are shows someone else created for different channels. Only one original program, so no need for a list for just that. Dream Focus 15:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As someone mentioned above, where does it say a list qualifies as notable when it only lists original programs specifically? I can see the concern over a list, especially not referenced. I did not create this list, just moved it out of the main article, which was becoming too long with this list included. The lists such as List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV and others have been on Wikipedia for over a decade with no issues at this point. Just mentioning....
Msw1002 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This channel has already proven to be very popular for its iconic selection of toons. I think it totally deserves to have an extension with a list of programs page. Voicebox64 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Viewers should know what airs on the channel. 12.28.52.122 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The channel's programming is better summarized in a paragraph in the main article about programming than yet another adverty WP:NOTTVGUIDE violation. Nate • (chatter) 22:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hopefully, you will start or support a deletion of List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV as well. This is the same type of list with this kind of violation. :)
Msw1002 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable sources and no reason why it should be a separate article. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The channel, like most diginets, has little to no original programming. A reasonable summary of channel programming and more detail of any original programming can be provided in the parent article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last comment (I promise!), because this list is headed for deletion. Why are other similar list articles not up for deletion? No one seems to want to mention or address that. 🤔🤫🫣Msw1002 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This channel largely exists to show reruns of older television shows. Wikipedia should not serve as a guide for what one can watch on random television channels. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to show any original content. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --wooden superman 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, they do, see above; but even if that was not the case, a list of programs may be considered notable even if not (completely) original ( =coverage on the topic as a set includes https://www.animationmagazine.net/2024/05/metv-toons-unveils-debut-programming-schedule/ https://www.fastcompany.com/91152142/metv-toons-max-cartoons-looney-tunes https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/metv-toons-network-launch-weigel-broadcasting-warner-bros-discovery-1235988916/ https://www.pennlive.com/entertainment/2024/06/metv-officially-launches-new-cartoon-channel-on-your-dial.html; and other guidelines may apply anyway) Mushy Yank (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur H. Marshall

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

Ancestry.com and The Peak Seeker are not reliable. Highpointers.org is the official highpointing organization so should not be used here. The only seemingly reliable source here is The Oregonian. Unless more coverage can be found, I feel like Arthur H. Marshall's achievements are better discussed briefly in the highpointing article instead of in its own article as notability seems weak. The current state of the article is certainly not sufficient and is written poorly. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Was not able to find additional reliable sources. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 16:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DJ Cane:, please see current sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep

https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2000/10/29/for-certain-class-climber-life/51015049007/

https://books.google.com/books?id=BZQSAQAAIAAJ

https://books.google.com/books?id=2vZvAAAAMAAJ

https://www.theday.com/news/20170425/reaching-the-top-of-america/

I believe the in-depth coverage on him in the Oregonian, and multiple sources crediting him with the first in the US to reach all the tops and receiving coverage multiple times spanning years apart is an indication of notability and I feel he meets Wikipedia:SPORTSPERSON

Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I nominated the article for deletion, I think with some further improvements it can be kept with all these sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep per WP:HEY. I’d love for someone else to add the sources found to the article. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, fails WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Andreas: The Original Mixtape

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

Both of the references in the article are dead links, and the most significant coverage I was able to find is in an article by Pitchfork ([8]) which has some sentences about the mixtape. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions such as [9]. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Young Maylay. toweli (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. toweli (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Young Maylay per nom. Fails WP:NALBUM. मल्ल (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Records (independent)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30+ years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:

1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If such an article on Dutch East India Trading were to be made I would recommend this article to be merged there. Said article has to exist first though. Since it doesn't, I don't recommend for this article to be redirected to Homestead Records either, since there's no mention of Giant Records there. Given the lack of coverage as well as the difficulty of finding anything about it due to the overlap in name with the Warner Bros. label, I recommend delete. Recon rabbit 17:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to hear if there are objections or support for the Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Another non-notable individual, but may together with the two other such articles perhaps be merged into one? Barely anything can be said about the individual Theodore, the topic of the article, who died aged 1 or thereabouts. What the articles (and the sources) really are about is Jackson's treatment of or position towards Native Americans. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how a child that lived for 6 months is notable. There is no claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I read the article and looked over the sources. They're either books or paywalled, so I have not read them, but they're good quality and the topics look direct. I'm confident in the presumption of notability. I'm more concerned about neutral, encyclopedic wording than about notability. In addition to that, I feel including enslaved people, whose stories are undertold, in this encyclopedia is something we should err on the side of doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Charley (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer keep but I have no objection to this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, does Indigenous members of the Andrew Jackson household make sense? Going by our article, it doesn't look like we have any real evidence for Theodore's origins. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment makes no arguments regarding notability and claims that a max 3,600 word article would violate WP:SIZERULE—obviously untrue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though I have trouble seeing how consensus will be reached if people don't include more policy-based reasoning, particularly regarding notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charley (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside. I object to the word "captive". That doesn't jibe with this article or Theodore's. Neither was captured by Jackson, and it seems to me to be a POV slur against him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarityfiend It's funny, after reading the sources published in the last 20 years, I think I object to calling Lyncoya his "adopted son" but that's mostly me being emo and a different discussion that probably happens on generational timescales. ANYWAY, I assumed it would get moved at some point and I am very excited to see what another brain thinks of. My only caveat is that Theodore is not confirmed to have been Muscogee, and based on cultural norms of the time, was very possibly given as a gift/tribute by an ally (see Charley), so the title shouldn't be Theodore (Muscogee). I don't think it abrogates him being a captive that Jackson didn't personally throw a net over him and carry him home--Jackson had possession of a bunch of orphaned babies that didn't belong to him because he was a local warlord running a race war--but it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. But I don't know what else to use. Halp? jengod (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ADD: We could arguably merge them both into Lyncoya as subsections. I didn't do that in the first place because these two were separate human people with distinct stories and their burial in brittle letters and footnotes for much of the past 200 years was not accidental. They were very intentionally excluded from the narrative. jengod (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC

Clarityfiend,Jengod: Another thought comes to mind here: we look at this through the eyes of our era. There is a old tradition in Hawaii, even now, called Hānai (informal adoption) whereby parents gave their children to others to be raised. One of the reasons in earlier years was because you weren't likely to go to war against someone who was raising your child. Hānai is still practiced there, for a variety of reasons. We don't know the background (do we?) of why Jackson got these native American children. But there might have been reasoning for it. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Andrew Jackson's Native American pet"? He called him a pet, so no slur here against the esteemed slaveholder, we wouldn't want to do that of course. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As bad as that sounds in 2024, language changes over the centuries. "a pampered and usually spoiled child" Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet among a lot of different definitions pulled up by a search. Unless we can dig up the year 1814 definition, we'll never know. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input and perhaps a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

232d Medical Battalion

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

Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search got mostly press releases. A subject specific notability guideline doesn't exist for military units/formations, and the article seems to not fulfill our general notability guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep articles on battalion-sized units per WP:MILUNIT. But move to 232nd Medical Battalion per norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error message comes up on this AFD, as well "Do not use {{Draft article}} in mainspace". — Maile (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, — Maile ,

I don't see any problems with this AFD or the article and I don't know what draft article you are referring to. I've put "nowiki" tags around this template because it is interfering with discussion here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just got that message again by trying to add. See first sentence of this nomination, "Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace." But if no one else gets that, maybe I'll just avoid this article. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66 Hate to say this, but I'm not seeing any error messages, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sourcing on the subject is the unit talking about itself. That is neither secondary nor independent. MILUNIT is not a notability guideline and so per WP:N has zero sway here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have expanded it a bit and added some sources as part of #NOV24 backlog drive. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBirdsShedTears, neither of the refs you added is independent, so what is the basis of your keep !vote? JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess TheBirdsShedTears' updates
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the added refs mentioned above do not appear to be independent. So I'm not sure those really count towards notability. I agree with the above that military units often are notable, but I'm not sure we can really !keep unless there is independent coverage in RS. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are definitely not independent and do not count towards notability whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 32nd Medical Brigade: where the lack of independent sourcing for the battalion would be less of a problem. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX This would be cheaper than deletion, certainly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted by State

Due to overflow, this part has been moved to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by state

[1] Farragher, Thomas (November 14, 2019). "Saving the Garden movie house in Greenfield". Boston Globe.

[2] Olson, Kris (15 April 2021). "Lawyer, wife reopen theater complex bought just before pandemic hit". Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

[3] "Isaac Mass". BusinessWest. April 23, 2013. ISSN 1049-9822.

[4] "Greenfield lawyer Isaac Mass appointed to Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission". masslive.com. 15 March 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

General

Sorted by State

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.