Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Social science. 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:
  1. 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, 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Social science|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Social science.
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.


Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science/archive.
Purge page cache watch

This list includes sublists of deletion debates on articles related to language and history.

See also: Science-related deletions and Medicine-related deletions.

Social science

Cultural health

Cultural health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cultural health" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

WP:G4 might apply here, but I can't tell because the previous version was deleted in 2005. Aunk (talk · contribs) recreated the page with the edit summary Adding Stub (someone deleted the last one without notice) see discussion page for more info), but Aunk had edited the previous AFD twice, so clearly they were given plenty of notice. The "more info" on the talk page appears to assume the page was deleted because of POV issues, but only one delete !voter even mentioned POV. Essentially, the page was recreated based on a flawed premise, and I have no reason to believe the previous status quo has changed even twelve years later, let alone one year later when the page was recreated. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:G4 is not really a problem here. I've just checked, and this article is sufficiently different from the version that was deleted in 2005; at least, the more contentious and original research aspects of the 2005 version are no longer included. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Very well. Anyway, if the article was deleted as containing nothing but OR, that seems to indicate that the topic itself is OR. A quick Googling brings up a few non-wiki hits, but those appear to be describing different concepts to our article: Comparative and Cross-cultural Health Research, Mosby's Pocket Guide to Cultural Health Assessment, Doorway Thoughts: Cross Cultural Health Care for Older Adults, etc. all take the form of "cultural [health assessment]" or "[cross-cultural] health". The fact that the same user recreated the article with no citations of reliable sources, except one WP:BLUE sentence whose source almost certainly doesn't use the term "cultural health", does not bode well. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Community Displacement in Philadelphia

Community Displacement in Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Community Displacement in Philadelphia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I've declined a WP:PROD on this, as a number of different editors have worked on it for eight years without apparently seeing a problem so any deletion won't be uncontroversial; however, it's unsourced and possibly unsalvageable. Procedural nom so I abstain.  ‑ Iridescent 13:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment The article is organized by neighbhorhoods. I wonder if List of Philadelphia neighborhoods can have a section on community displacement pressures and include material from this. There are also articles on the separate neighborhoods, but just mentioning the issue of community displacement in each one separately does not add up to a unified coverage of the issue in one place. --doncram 17:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Iridescent, the article creator long ago moved her userpage and usertalk page to the article and article's talk page. Could you please reverse that move, and then re-arrange the banners and dead-link bot notices appropriately? Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, and completely lacking in inline citations. But only delete after the creator's talkpage and its history have been restored. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly Rename/Refocus - Though it needs inline citations (and a lead, etc.) it does have a list of references and the parts I skimmed through didn't read like OR (which doesn't usually have lots of dates, statistics, basic facts, etc. My inclination is that this would overlap significantly with the subject Gentrification of Philadelphia, for which we have several comparable articles (San Francisco, Vancouver, Atlanta, etc.). It could also be merged into a newly expanded section on Philadelphia in the gentrification article, though I do think Philadelphia could sustain its own. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
If that were to happen it would more than likely have to be userfied or draftified and then a lot of time spent verifying the information and providing the inline citations. I really don't personally think this can stand in article space unless it were to get a major overhaul beforehand. The article creator hasn't edited in 7.5 years. Softlavender (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Poor, mostly us-sourced (huge external links section - mostly to primary sources of information and a dead activist site) ESSAY about gentrification of various neighborhoods in Philadelphia without a proper lead section or any connection between the list of neighborhoods. I'm not sure this would merit an article (separate of the article on Philadelphia and the specific neighborhoods) - but at the current state it simply can't stay.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, Rename and edit. I added a lede section primarily based on an excellent 2014 Philadelphia Daily News special pullout section of multiple articles: The Problems and the Promise: Gentrification in Philadelphia. The topic is notable and I think User:Rhododendrites suggests a better and more common WP:COMMONNAME with Gentrification of Philadelphia. I think what is here, while needing editing, is salvageable, though I would not object to anyone stubbing down what they think is original research. Lacking inline citations is not, I believe, a valid reason for deletion but perhaps this has been changed? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsalvageable WP:POINTY WP:ESSAY reliant on WP:OR. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

White Americans in San Francisco

White Americans in San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "White Americans in San Francisco" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Unremarkable, non-notable, unencyclopedic, etc, besides, whites in San Fran are not necessarily American. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- from the PROD last week. Concern = Adds no value to WP beyond the statistics already found in San Francisco Rhadow (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable content fork; any pertinent info belongs in demographics of SF. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • How in the world is this topic considered "non-notable" when white people are half the population of San Francisco?--Prisencolin (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable article. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Time spent reading

Time spent reading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Time spent reading" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Arbitrary article. Time spent reading is the amount of time people spend reading. I hardly think it warrants an article explaining that. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - this article is an arbitrary collection of information, failing to distinguish different ways in which one might use one's time reading (e.g. time spent reading online work, time spent reading fiction versus non-fiction, time spent reading newspapers, time spent reading magazines, and so on and so forth). Vorbee (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although the topic itself seems notable, and can be expanded with statistic, explanations, etc., current article definitely fits into WP:NOT#DICT, and deserves to be nuked. The article is almost devoid of content right now and I don't see it being of any sort of useful basis to expand on. tonyxc600 comms logs 16:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Religious assimilation

Religious assimilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Religious assimilation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Dicdef, no sources found, article untouched since 2009 Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cultural assimilation. Religion is a part of culture, and is ultimately assimilated like any other part. bd2412 T 20:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cultural assimilation per bd2412. We could perhaps add the second and third paragraphs from our article there, but only if they were sourced, which they aren't. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Distinct enough from cultural assimilation that it merits its own article. The fact that it's stubby at the moment doesn't keep anyone from fixing it--nothing here strikes me as OR, more like not much more than DICTDEF... Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I searched for this term and found relatively few uses, but did find an example like this [1] that begins by specifying it as the religious aspect of Cultural Assimilation. The term Religious Assimilation seems to be always accompanying Cultural Assimilation. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jclemens: It is a longstanding practice to merge stubby content into supertopic articles, and then break it out again when the material is sufficiently expanded within the supertopic. Merging now would not bar breaking it out into a separate page if the necessary expansion occurs. bd2412 T 20:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
These sorts of organizational decisions are really best left to article editors to work out. ~Kvng (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cultural assimilation; no sources have been presented at this AfD to indicate that the subject is independently notable. None are present in the article, and my searches have not produced anything amounting to SIGCOV. The term gets used link, but it's unclear whether it's been a subject of study independent of cultural or ethnic assimilation. No prejudice to restoring to a full article if can be done with sufficient RS. A redirect works for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and do not redirect. I've narrowed the definition to avoid the WP:DICDEF problem (syncretism is a separate concept). I've also added a major reference (a Princeton University doctoral dissertation) that makes the point that dominant cultures treat religion differently from other aspects of cultural assimilation. A specific focus on religious assimilation, documented in sources, warrants a separate article—even though of course the more general concept of cultural assimilation will be discussed, if only to distinguish religious assimilation as an important special case.
There is a severe problem with access to sources due to copywrong and paywall issues, as well as old paper-only documents. For example, I cannot use the following, simply because I have no access to it:
Farr, Eugene (1948). Religious assimilation: a case study of the adoption of Christianity by the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi (ThD dissertation). New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. 
The same is true of the books on Rwanda and on Eastern European Jews that show up at the top of the Google Books search. Nevertheless, WP:NEXIST states: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." By that standard, the warrant for a separate article on this topic should never have been in the slightest doubt.
Syrenka V (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Update: I've added two more references, with inline citations and further discussion of the relationships between religious assimilation and other aspects of cultural assimilation. Although still a stub, this article already establishes notability.
Syrenka V (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per recent article improvements. Enough sourcing to establish notability independent of Cultural assimilation. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to cultural assimilation, with no prejudice against a selective Merge. Of three sources in the current version, two are unpublished. A dissertation and thesis can be good sources, but (a) both talk about this in the context of cultural assimilation, and (b) in the context of this article, both are primary sources, the point of which is to make a novel claim. When a dissertation is published and/or other people start to take up that idea is when Wikipedia covers it. Cultural assimilation is a huge subject, too, so I'd want to see a great deal of sources to justify a stand-alone article for a subtype. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The size of the topic of cultural assimilation is an argument for, not against, splitting off separate treatment of subtypes, particularly those seen in the sources as significantly different from the general case. As noted above, there are many more sources behind paywalls; these are the ones I could easily access on the timescale of an AfD. Of the sources cited, only LeMay 2010 is being used as a primary source, and then only as an example to show that a particular kind of viewpoint is in fact held by some researchers—not to attest to the validity of that viewpoint. Both citations from Connor 2010 are from discussions of the prior literature, and Yang and Ebaugh 2001 is likewise used to attest to the views of Will Herberg and other religious pluralists in the earlier literature. WP:NOR, section WP:PRIMARY: "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." Except for LeMay 2010, these sources are being used as secondary.
The sources cited are all unequivocally published by Wikipedia's standards, which are very broad. WP:V, section WP:SOURCE including footnote 6:
Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see.
Availability on ProQuest or on Sophia University's website would definitely count. WP:RS, section WP:SCHOLARSHIP, explicitly allows use of publicly available, completed doctoral dissertations.
Syrenka V (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The size of the topic of cultural assimilation is an argument for, not against, splitting off I think I get what you mean by this, but what I mean is, effectively WP:NOPAGE. It's a minor subtopic of a subject we already cover.
Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". We're not looking for verifiability, which is what this sense of "published" means (literally everything on the Internet meets this definition). We're looking for notability and the reliability of sources to establish notability. That requires sources to be published in the sense of a third party determining that the content meets standards for quality and has merit/is worthy of notice. That's why it matters if an article about a subject was on someone's blog or in the New York Times. Granted, a dissertation is better than a blog, and I think it could be used in the article, but I don't think it contributes much to WP:GNG unless it's been published (in the sense of a press). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
From WP:NOPAGE itself, within WP:N: "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". "Is", not "may be". A generalized preference for merging stubs goes against the GNG, except in the case where they cannot be expanded for lack of existing sources. And "minor" is not a reasonable description of the scope of the topic by any stretch of the imagination, as even the few sources already in use demonstrate, let alone the many others easily found by search but not easily accessible as full text.
WP:NOPAGE also mentions cases where merging with a larger topic provides context needed to understand the more specific topic, or where many similar topics are better handled together because more or less the same things need to be said about all of them. In this case, even the very brief stub I have (re)written already demonstrates that there are fundamental differences between the sociology of religious assimilation and that of other forms of cultural assimilation. A treatment of religious assimilation that considers it first and foremost as a subcategory of cultural assimilation would, by that fact alone, be actively misleading.
As to reliability of dissertations as sources: although WP:N does have some additional requirements for sources to establish notability (independence, and at least one secondary source), nothing anywhere in WP:N supports a different or higher standard for reliability of sources than the general standards of WP:RS. The scrutiny provided by Princeton University's sociology department—which must approve any dissertation used to support conferral of its doctorate—is likely more rigorous than that provided by most book publishers (although likely less rigorous than that applied by Princeton University Press). WP:SCHOLARSHIP within WP:RS does mention citation in the literature as further confirmation of the reliability of a dissertation; Google scholar shows that Connor 2010 has been cited 7 times.
Syrenka V (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Cultural assimilation. The content quality here is better than that at Cultural assimilation (much of which should be reduced). Syrenka V has significantly revised this article since the nomination. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the complimentary remark as to content quality! I could do better yet if I had more expertise in interpreting the hundreds of pages of Connor 2010, and access to more of the existing paper or paywalled sources—indeed, a real sociologist with in-person access to a large university library could probably make a Featured Article from this little stub, whose modest size conceals a vast topic. Because of that topic size, however, as well as the very different sociological behavior of religious assimilation versus other forms of cultural assimilation that I mentioned above, I continue to oppose merging with Cultural assimilation.
Syrenka V (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. I'm not opposed to a keep. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article has been much improved by Syrenka V so that it now is sufficiently referenced. Distinct enough from cultural assimilation to merits its own article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Flying glass

Flying glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Flying glass" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • But the article isn't about the phrase, it's about the physical phenomenon as a hazard. – Uanfala 11:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The article begins "Flying glass is an expression commonly used to mean..." I'd say the Afd nomination applies. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTDIC, which is implicit in the deletion rationale, has to do with articles' subjects, and not with the particular way their first sentences happen to have been worded. – Uanfala 20:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Indeed but I just don't see anything more than that, at in this time. I'd be willing to revisit my !vote if someone can develop a bona fide encyclopedia article on the subject of flying glass, which I rather doubt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't say notability is impossible, but this article does not show it.--Milowenthasspoken 19:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It is notable to anyone who has been seriously injured by flying glass, and to the attending ambulance and medical staff. The article needs to be expanded to describe the injuries that it causes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Plausible search term, more than a WP:DICDEF, could do with some more bluelinks. Narky Blert (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Too difficult box

Too difficult box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Too difficult box" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Looks like it fails WP:GNG with only primary sources supporting the article. Shaded0 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The OPs criticism of the article as it stands is irrelevant. It has wide currency and is an important political concept: see Google and see news.--Penbat (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Penbat, while you are permitted to participae in a discussion about an article you crated, it is usual to mention in your comment the fact that you created the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unless material is purposed into a page on Clarke's book The 'Too Difficult' Box, this concept fails WP:NEO not merely because the sole source on the page are the lectures in which the term's creator Charles Clarke proposed the term in 2014, but because a JSTOR search comes up empty. As a page on a political term, it fails WP:NEO, although it may merely be WP:TOOSOON. However, a page on Clare's 2014 book The 'Too Difficult' Box: The Big Issues Politicians Can't Crack would pass WP:NBOOK. If User:Penbat were willing to convert this page into a page on the book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge with article on Charles Clarke. Vorbee (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Responses to sneezing

Responses to sneezing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Responses to sneezing" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Almost entirely uncited, and some of the listed responses seem unlikely. It's an amusing page, for sure, but not verifiable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Largely uncited since 2009. Citogenesis waiting to happen. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seems to be trivial. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Please do not delete. Very enjoyable page, causing no harm to anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.102.29 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per countless readily available sources such as [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Of course the article, like millions of others, needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess the thing to do is remove all unsourced items as possible hoaxes (per User:Gamaliel). That would leave us with English, Icelandic, German, and the first line of the lede. The non-list content is already too weak for an article, so I'm leaning toward Delete. / edg 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The second of the books that I linked above is an academic work that lists the responses in a dozen or so languages, and that's just one of the sources that I found in a few seconds. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think notability factors in at all here; this is clearly a sub-page of sneeze. The "List of responses in other languages" table may be better suited for some other wiki (Wiktionary?) but I don't have any specific proposal that I think is an improvement. I agree there's a case to delete by WP:TNT to ensure all the content is sourced properly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that this is a sub-page of sneeze. Most reliable sources, such as those that I listed above, seem to cover this in the context of language and culture rather than of sneezing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. We don't delete stuff articles just because at present they happen to be unsourced. The topic is clearly notable, and if there are issues with any specific entries, it will be a trivial task to verify them against a dictionary. Mention of the topic can of course be made at Sneeze but the list is too long to be merged there. – Uanfala 06:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are plenty of sources available that can verify this article's contents (see, e.g., this and this). The solution is to add references, not delete. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I just looked this page up to find out about ways to say bless you in other languages. It definitely serves a purpose, and I certainly think the information CAN be sourced. Unsourced info can be challenged and removed, obviously, but there is no reason to delete the page, as the topic is something that people wonder about, and further there is enough info to have a standalone article apart from the Sneezing page. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolute Beginner

Absolute Beginner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Absolute Beginner" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Noticed this when someone re-added a link from Incel to this article (Incel/involuntary celibacy has had to be salted in multiple locations after it was repeatedly recreated). This appears to be nearly the same concept, although to be clear I don't have reason to believe that this page was created to get around the salt. This is an issue for WP:NOTURBANDICT (i.e. there are a lot of terms for a virgin, virginity, or sexual inexperience, and that's what dictionaries are for). It's a term about a concept we already cover. It's possible it could be mentioned at somewhere like virginity or celibacy but it's unclear the sources would justify inclusion in those large topics. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a German language term not notable in English. It is already on the German language Wikipedia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Restore to band shortcut as it was a few months ago, according to the history. Appears to be a minor, foreign neologism, not even worth a mention in another article here. TheValeyard (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Reply. If you took a look at Category:Words and phrases by language you'd see that there is a precedent for that. Furthermore, a word that has been in usage since the 1990s is not necessarily a neologism. Even if it is a neologism, there are literally thousands of neologisms on Wikipedia which are fully fledged articles. Are we going to suggest deleting them all? probably not. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
"But Other Stuff! is not a valid argument to make. Other neologism articles contain quality citations to support notability. This nonsense does not. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
It is best to try hard to respond to what your correspondent actually said, or meant to say. I think 92's main point is that no term that has been in use for decades should be called a neologism, as "neo" means new, and the term should really only be applied to words or phrases that are actually new. Geo Swan (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I responded to the IP user in precisely the manner necessary to rebut the silly assertion, it isn't my problem that you can't understand it. TheValeyard (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep; the phrase "absolute beginners" while adding "liebe" (liebe is German for love) yields 212 results; in the plural you get 229 results for a total of nearly 430 German news results. There is a distinct blog on the issue [6], and there are literally hundreds of vlogs of ordinary German citizens describing their relationship status under that term on video-sharing websites such as Youtube. Since I'm not proficient in German I could not refine my search effectively to yield more results so I imagine a native German would be able to establish this article's notability more easily. Besides, this is just about the only article that exists on sexuality in Germany. It seems more logical to expand our coverage rather than leave sexuality in Germany blank. I also disagree with Pontificalibus' delete rationale since English sourcing is not a requirement for contributing to English mainspace; better for him to suggest a change to Wikipedia guidelines rather than to argue that mute point here. Furthermore, the article has been monitored and reviewed by at least half a dozen German-language Wikipedia administrators on the German version since 2005, so I doubt they would let an obscure term slide like that, furthermore bosltering my perception of this article as meeting notability criteria. Also, the term has an abbreviation: AB. Usually terms only get abbreviations or acronyms whenn they are established as notable and widely used terms in an effort to save time due to being oft-repeated. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Blogs and vlogs do not count when evaluating sources for questions of notability. TheValeyard (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Woah! Woah! Woah!

      A blanket dismissal of "blogs", without recognizing truly notable blogs, is not responsible. 99.x percent of blogs are non-notable, and exist in well-deserved obscurity. But there are hundreds of online publications, that are called blogs, that are at least as notable as print newspapers. I repeat, to give a blanket dismissal of "blogs", without explicitly recognizing that a large fraction of the blogs we have all actually heard of do completely measure up to the criteria we expect of WP:Reliable sources.

      Scotusblog is a good example. I have seen poorly informed contributors give it a routine dismissal, as "just a blog", even though well respected newspapers reporters on legal matters routinely cite its articles. We consider those reporters RS, so we should respect the sources they respect, even if its name contains the term "blog".

      If it has never occurred to you that the "blogs" we are most likely to have heard of are the ones most likely to measure up to our criteria for being considered RS, then please consider this now, and never denounce "blogs" again, without an explicit disclaimer.

      If you plan to continue to denounce all so-called blogs, even Scotusblog, and its clearly reliable peers, I will share my general experience that it seems to me that those who dismiss online sources as mere blogs, even when they are clearly reliable, often raise concerns that they are trying to push a clandestine POV. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Swan, that is entirely irrelevant as the blogs we are talking about here are well within the "99.x" range you yourself cite. Don't waste time with strawmen again, please. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Yard, not irrelevant, as you started off with the big mistake of conflating all blogs -- a potentially disruptive position to take. You seem prepared to continue to tout this misleading conflation.

As for your strawman crack -- sheesh. I haven't taken a position for retention or deletion fo this article, so how could it possibly be meaningful to accuse me adopting a strawman position? Geo Swan (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The point, which is sailing right over your head, is that my statement that is correct in 99.9% of situations, i.e. this situation. It's sad that you have to resort to hammering this afd so early in it's run, but you gotta go with what you're good at, I guess. TheValeyard (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Duh. I know that. I never described vlogs/blogs as sources. I merely mentioned them in response to insinuations that AB is non-existent. There are lots of reliable German news sources such as T-Online [7], Badische Zeitung [8] that use it. Furthermore, AB's not onely have a presence online but even have self-help groups. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Duh (I can do that too). Merely existing does not equal "notable", that is the point of not using blogs as sources. TheValeyard (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Under no instance should this be the main entry under Absolute Beginner. IF there is sufficient coverage of the concept within German sources (and not merely something used a few times in blogs) to meet the requirements for a stand alone page, it would need to be under a disambiguation title like: Absolute beginner (German sexual neologism) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talkcontribs)

  • Comment In most references you can find online, Absolute Beginners are not merely mentioned in passing in the source; rather it is the main topic of discussion. This would make it notable. 92.2.73.254 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge' - should be around 3-4 sentences at most in virginity article, as about 90% of the article is relevant to that topic generally. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
+1. Furthermore, I tried to verify two of the „sourced“ statements by reading the given sources, the two turned out to be unfounded. Maybe someone should go over all the statements resp. sources.--Turris Davidica (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect target--??
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see any suggestions for redirect targets other than Beginner (band), who used to be called "Absolute Beginner" when they started out. —Kusma (t·c) 06:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Kusma:--See CasLiber's and Davidica's !vote(s).Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a redirect to the band, profited the current article is deleted first, then the redirect created. Otherwise it will be an activist magnet. TheValeyard (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Iranian Turkic alphabet

Iranian Turkic alphabet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Iranian Turkic alphabet" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK of Azerbaijani alphabet. Every thing is copy-pasted from the Azerbaijani alphabet. the lead, sources, external links and etc. And the name of article is WP:OR, WP:POV, meaningless and unscientific. Turkic is a language family and not a specific language. What is this so-called "Iranian Turkic"? Google it and google brings this wiki page and its copies on other websites. This article should be deleted and if it has any useful content, they should be used on the main article. Wario-Man (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete Per the nominator. Pure bogus. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


Prodded articles


History

Acts of Llàtzer

Acts of Llàtzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Acts of Llàtzer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

No academic sources referring to such an acta via Google Books and the web in general. I also tried alternative spelling via Acts of Lazarus, nothing. Fails WP:GNG. JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete; genuine but not notable. Contrary to the nomination, there are multiple hits in Google books for "Actes de Llàtzer",[9] e.g. in Actes del Quizè Col·loqui Internacional de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes by Kálmán Faluba. However, they do not amount to "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG, so they do not confirm notability. – Fayenatic London 09:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think either Redirect to Peter Pascual or possibly weak keep. There is a bibliography of research on the book (really on Pasqual) in Garcia Sempere, Marinela. Vides de sants en català conservades en manuscrits solts i en impresos anteriors a 1550. Alacant : Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, 2014 which gives four sources and seemingly two other names by which the manuscript is known, Vida de Llàtzer i de les seves germanes santa Marta i santa Maria Magdalena, and Història de sant Llàtzer. I'm not able to piece it all together, but in whole it seems there is something here. In particular, if I'm right that the manuscript has these two other names, perhaps there is enough to pass WP:NOR (I think the subject already passes WP:V and WP:NPOV). Smmurphy(Talk) 23:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete No claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Looking some more, I don't find anything substantial about the work under any title (nor is it completely clear to me if the different titles really are the same work). Smmurphy(Talk) 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Perizzites

Perizzites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Perizzites" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This article is simply a much shorter counterpart to Perizzite. They are duplicates -- they're both about the Perizzites. All meaningful content in Perizzites is found, sometimes in somewhat different wording, in the longer Perizzite. I figure we shouldn't have the both of them. Alephb (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is actually older than perizzite by four years but the latter article is longer and better sourced. I don't see anything in the extant article that needs to be merged into the newer bettter perizzite. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Perizzite, per nominator rationale. No benefit to having its own page - GalatzTalk 17:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect - seems clear enough to me, and there is nothing to merge that isn't already in the other article. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Worli riots

Worli riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Worli riots" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A POV article, made by a promotional disruptive sock,[10] and defended by a sock of same sockfarm.[11] Article lacks notability and the "riots" have no notability. Only passing mentions that can be covered in Worli. Such incidents are common and they don't deserve their own article. Capitals00 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 09:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete "a grinding stone was thrown"... um ok. Perhaps if someone could find who it was that got killed, it could be merged. otherwise I concur with the nom. Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  14:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Worli or Delete I would support a merge wholly, except, as AGuyIntoBooks points out, the information in this article as it stands is unfortunately too vague. I would therefore be in agreement with either merging or deletion. MartinJones (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The riots continued until April, were the subject of court inquiry, notable at the time in press reports and much discussed in books dealing with Dalit politics, among other topics. I added a couple references to the article. I can't comment as to sockpuppet issues, otherwise this would be a keep !vote, outright. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Many such riots take place and "were the subject of court inquiry", but since there has been lack of discussion and lack of any important details or notability, they don't deserve an article. Capitals00 (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
See, e.g., Anupama Rao (2009). The Caste Question: Dalits and the Politics of Modern India. University of California Press. pp. 199–203. ISBN 9780520257610.  which contains a five page section entitled "The 1974 Riots" for an example of such discussion demonstrating notability: "Riots in the Worli area of central Bombay, which began in the Bombay Development Department (BDD) chawls (tenements) on January 5, 1974 are an important landmark in Dalit politics." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Already read and don't see anything more than what had been already provided by the promotional sock to prove notability. WP:EVENTCRITERIA says "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." This one fails the criteria. Capitals00 (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Being written about in length as "an important landmark" in a book published by a respected university press thirty-three years after the events took place is almost literally the textbook definition of "lasting, historical significance". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Anna Fortunato Brivio

Anna Fortunato Brivio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Anna Fortunato Brivio" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Member of an important family and someone's mother - no sense of any notability in her own right. A redirect to the family would make sense, but nothing here justifies a stand-alone article. Was nominated for CSD A7 but this was removed with "decline A7, associated with notable people", which does not seem to me to "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". PamD 06:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Brivius de Brokles#Other family members The subject does not meet the notability criteria, yet she remains a possible search term and information on her is contained elsewhere on Wikipedia. MartinJones (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Community Displacement in Philadelphia

Community Displacement in Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Community Displacement in Philadelphia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I've declined a WP:PROD on this, as a number of different editors have worked on it for eight years without apparently seeing a problem so any deletion won't be uncontroversial; however, it's unsourced and possibly unsalvageable. Procedural nom so I abstain.  ‑ Iridescent 13:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment The article is organized by neighbhorhoods. I wonder if List of Philadelphia neighborhoods can have a section on community displacement pressures and include material from this. There are also articles on the separate neighborhoods, but just mentioning the issue of community displacement in each one separately does not add up to a unified coverage of the issue in one place. --doncram 17:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Iridescent, the article creator long ago moved her userpage and usertalk page to the article and article's talk page. Could you please reverse that move, and then re-arrange the banners and dead-link bot notices appropriately? Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, and completely lacking in inline citations. But only delete after the creator's talkpage and its history have been restored. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly Rename/Refocus - Though it needs inline citations (and a lead, etc.) it does have a list of references and the parts I skimmed through didn't read like OR (which doesn't usually have lots of dates, statistics, basic facts, etc. My inclination is that this would overlap significantly with the subject Gentrification of Philadelphia, for which we have several comparable articles (San Francisco, Vancouver, Atlanta, etc.). It could also be merged into a newly expanded section on Philadelphia in the gentrification article, though I do think Philadelphia could sustain its own. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
If that were to happen it would more than likely have to be userfied or draftified and then a lot of time spent verifying the information and providing the inline citations. I really don't personally think this can stand in article space unless it were to get a major overhaul beforehand. The article creator hasn't edited in 7.5 years. Softlavender (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Poor, mostly us-sourced (huge external links section - mostly to primary sources of information and a dead activist site) ESSAY about gentrification of various neighborhoods in Philadelphia without a proper lead section or any connection between the list of neighborhoods. I'm not sure this would merit an article (separate of the article on Philadelphia and the specific neighborhoods) - but at the current state it simply can't stay.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, Rename and edit. I added a lede section primarily based on an excellent 2014 Philadelphia Daily News special pullout section of multiple articles: The Problems and the Promise: Gentrification in Philadelphia. The topic is notable and I think User:Rhododendrites suggests a better and more common WP:COMMONNAME with Gentrification of Philadelphia. I think what is here, while needing editing, is salvageable, though I would not object to anyone stubbing down what they think is original research. Lacking inline citations is not, I believe, a valid reason for deletion but perhaps this has been changed? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsalvageable WP:POINTY WP:ESSAY reliant on WP:OR. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Religious liberalism in Rajput courts

Religious liberalism in Rajput courts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Religious liberalism in Rajput courts" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Appears to be a coatrack essay/synthesis and is not supported by the sources as claimed. Was created (without correct attribution) by merging three equally poor separate articles and pretty much has no links other than through what are now redirects from those articles. In all the years I have looked at this thing, I've never found sources that discuss the subject in any meaningful way. Sitush (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as synthesis. The sources do not even mention "religious liberalism". Also, much of the article is aboutu dynasties that didn't use the self-designation Rajput, but are called "Rajput" anachronistically. utcursch | talk 17:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ekumeku Movement

Ekumeku Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ekumeku Movement" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

article fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG. 77.189.193.114 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh666 01:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as written. Unsourced. Non-neutral, containing language such as "imperishable legacy". Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Undoubtedly the article, as it currently is, is poorly sourced. However, a search around reveals two academic sources on the topic:
-Igbafe, Philip A. (July 1971). "Western Ibo Society and its Resistance to British Rule: The Ekumeku Movement 1898–1911". The Journal of African History. Cambridge University Press. Volume 12 (Issue 3): pp. 441–459. ;
-Ohadike, Don C. (1991). The Ekumeku Movement: Western Igbo Resistance to the British Conquest of Nigeria, 1883-1914. Ohio University Press. ISBN 978-0821409855. 
and general coverage of the topic in a number of other books via the 'Find sources: books' link above.
So verifiable, notable and reliable sources but the article is in need of some improvement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk)
  • Found another academic source: Iweze, Daniel Olisa (2016). "The Role of Indigenous Collaborators during the Anglo-Ekumeku War of 1898-1911". Ufahamu: A Journal of African Studies. University of California. Volume 39 (Issue 1): pages 90–97.  --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as there's Notability given the informative sources, sources that have now occurred since the nomination's concerns. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as academic reliable sources have been highlighted and there are more book sources Atlantic306 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep A quick BEFORE shows several book references. Sourcing in article can be improved.Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Now it has sources, the basis of this AFD has disappeared. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is notable. Sources exist. Article needs inline sources but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Malcolmxl5, the subject clearly passes WP:V; WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are a matter of cleanup. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

July 1757 Heatwave

July 1757 Heatwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "July 1757 Heatwave" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Can't really find coverage of this topic. Even if I could, it's doubtful that this event would be notable enough to warrant an article. Wikipedia is not a database for previous years weather. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Nobody is writing about this particular heatwave because it's not notable, even if there was a heatwave at that time and place. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Neutral Keep. Article need improvement. 1757 was the hottest recorded summer until 2003 (A 1 in 500 years event) as may be seen in this wapo source [12]. We do have an article on 2003 European heat wave. We have other period weather record events, eg Great Frost of 1709. From a quick before there are quite a few sources on 1757. The article is 1 day old, give the creator time for this notable subject, deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Where are the "quite a few sources" to which you refer? I searched and found nothing of substance. Also, WP:REALPROBLEM. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Struck vote due to article state.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You do realize this was AFDed within an hour of creation? unfinished houses, indeed. Some sources: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27].Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want to add in the sources and fix the article go for it. Otherwise it needs to either be deleted or moved to a draft page and go through AfC. Clear case of WP:REALPROBLEM as mentioned before. It shouldn't have gone in the mainspace without sourcing or better context. There's sources like AfC for a reason. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • One sentence, unreferenced, and a huge table of entirely uncontextualized raw primary data is not what makes an acceptable Wikipedia article. Somebody needs to write a proper article, describing the subject, providing context, demonstrating its notability with references to substantial coverage (someone needs to have written specifically about the 1757 heat wave, not just mentioned it in passing as appears to be the case with your long list of citations), and removing the raw data, or I am going to vote to delete as well. Agricolae (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC) No attempt at improvement in the interim, so Delete. Agricolae (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Seeing the article creator (and it seems this is his sole contribution) isn't making any more changes, and the article is in a sad state, and I'm not taking this particular article up for improvement (not my typical field) - I am withdrawing my vote. I do think the subject is notable, but it needs work - willing to change my vote if someone does a HEY.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Expand into a proper article, or rather keep but tag for that. If this was the hottest month until 2003, it is noteworthy, but it needs considerably more context. This is not a case where an inadequate article requires TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The links posted by Icewhiz convince me a suitable article can be written on a notable subject here, let's just work on it; sort of reminds me of the Brescia explosion of 1769, which when I ran across the subject, was quite surprised did not have an article. It is harder, but writing about 18th century events like this is definitely feasible. The article should be moved to something with "heat wave" in the title, not "Heatwave", after closure.--Milowenthasspoken 12:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I've enjoyed spending some time on this, fascinating stuff. So I've added some text and references. Someone with better French skills than I could also add sources about the "canicule" of 1757. And this is pretty cool -- "canicule", the French word for heat wave, derives from the Latin "canis" for dog, i.e., dog days, because the Greeks and Romans noticed that Sirius, the Dog Star, appears at the hottest time of the year. I never knew that, I just always assumed the phrase had to do with dogs panting on hot days!--Milowenthasspoken 15:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - If the article was in the sorry state it was in before Milowent came along, I would have voted delete. However, they have created an entry that is actually useful to the encyclopedia and demonstrates the noteworthiness of the topic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Football revolution

Football revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Football revolution" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

I think the article is both WP:OR and WP:CFORK and as far as I have searched, the term 'football revolution' does not refer to Iran/is not widely used. The content however, can be merged with Football in Iran and Women's rights in Iran. Pahlevun (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep There are a lot of references about the event and subsequent interpretations. I've added references to the article. There are a few references I don't have access to. These include WSJ 2015 and the Jadavpur Journal of International Relations. The article could use more clean-up so that the concept is clearer, but I'm not going to have time to do it right now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge into one of the two articles discussed below. I'd be happy to do the work if that's the outcome here. I think there's plenty of "something" there, but it's not mainstream, as Pahlevun points out. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Surely there are tons of sources discussing women and football in Iran and as someone who is following the news closely on the subject, I can even tell you about the recent events. But the question is, are any of these discussing references the concept "football revolution" or not. This term is not used in Iran, I can tell you that. And what I see here is a coatrack article that instead of discussing about "football revolution", its definition, history, framework etc. is a set of facts about women and football in Iran. My problem is that there are no sources supporting the lead, which says:

The football revolution (or soccer revolution) refers to the events in Iran which began 1997 in the context of football in that country. The idea of a "football revolution" is that the game itself can be used as a part of the secularization of Iran and frame women's rights movements in the country.

Pahlevun (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: I'd support incorporating the information into Women's rights in Iran or Football in Iran. I did find one article that said it was a term used in Iran and there is a (I think) Iranian writer, Nafisi, but on reconsideration it does seem like it's more of a Western framing of the issue. I respect your opinion for having actual on the ground information. I appreciate you responding to me and I'm going to change my !vote to a merge. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Thank you. Pahlevun (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that the information in the article is certainty well covered and definitely notable and passes WP:GNG. The real issue though is not so much the content but rather the title, which appears to be a violation WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Similar to what the nominator said I can find no indication of the title "Football revolution" being regularly and reliably used in most of the sources. Perhaps a title change or a merge to an article such as Football in Iran and/or Women's rights in Iran would be more appropriate. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge - to Football in Iran and/or Women's rights in Iran, perhaps even its own article (Women's sport in Iran?). Definitely gets lots of coverage as a subject but not seeing widespread / any use of the term "football revolution" in this context, so no redirect. Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename and expand Just for kicks I searched: futbol revolucion, and turned up articles on sundry proposed or anticipated innovations in the sport. You get the same range of material if you search Football revolution term in English. This phrase seems less of a a WP:NEO than a sort of headline-speak. Certainly it describes a real and significant social/political phenomenon. After looking at both proposed targets, I think Women's rights in Iran#Sports would be the most appropriate merge target. However, I think it would be a better idea to KEEP this, rename it to something like Women and Sports in Iran, and expand it with some of the material now located at Women's rights in Iran#Sports. Because 1.) Women's Rights in Iran is getting sort of unwieldy. 2.) This topic is about women's role in Iranian society, not confined to political rights, and 3.) Sources in the article strongly support the idea that women's growing freedom to participate in sports in public is an important social and political phenomenon in Iran.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep per megalibrarygirl. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. I also like FD's idea of renaming the article and expanding the scope. GiantSnowman 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable from the citations in the article. The title of the article is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename -- Perhaps to Iranian revolution in women's football or merge to Women's football in Iran (which exists). There is no need to look for a wider merge target either in women's rights or women's sport. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

List of artifacts in Philippine history

List of artifacts in Philippine history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of artifacts in Philippine history" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Recent page creation by banned WP:SOCK account from a few days ago. Shaded0 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JournalmanManila Shaded0 (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppet comment(s)
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
  • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
And all of the sourcing and references by this page are fitted from those three sources, this is not a Original researches or a hoax, even it was based from a blog sites which had no references, as the people who want to delete the article must look on the lists of references , every statements from the page had citations this is even not came from Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. as wikipedia policy says , the lists of references are come from the academic and scholar works and even news from reliable news agencies such as Philippine Daily Inquirer for example, (one of the list of references) as if the users or admins is aren't consider this news site as a reliable or irrelevant. in short theirs no question of the accuracy of the page as it was backed by reliable-academic sourcing, and speaking of a "banned sock", there are NO stated rules in the 14 rules of WP:Deletion had stated "delete an article which is created by a banned editor despite or even of its reliability" NONE ! (Dashcam (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC))
  • Keep. Do we delete articles just because they are created by a sock? There is quite a lot of good, well-sourced content here. For consistency with other national archaeology overview articles we should probably rename to Archaeology of the Philipines and clean it up a bit (it looks like there are some copyvio issues), but it seems a shame to lose it altogether. Also, I don't see a tag on Hunter05, are they a confirmed sock? – Joe (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppet comment(s)
I support the Renaming for the sake of neutrality according to wikipedia policies.(Dashcam (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC))
  • Delete and/or Split. Not just because it's created by a Sock (no further comment on that for now, because I haven't reviewed the evidence), but because it ignores some fundamental problems of "Philippine" history - which is that it really wasn't "Philippine" history per se before the 1500s. Ask any historiographer or anthropologist and they'll agree that "Philippine" history presents a patently false sense of politico-cultural continuity. The presence of the article alone is a POV-push issue. An article like this is important, yes, but it really should be reconstituted as (1) Lists of Artifacts from separate ethnolinguistic regions (The Sulu archipelago, Mindanao, the Visayas, the Bicol region, the Tagalog Region, Central Luzon, The Ilocos Region, Cagayan Valley and the Cordilleran peoples); plus (2) a list of artifacts from the prehistory of the Philippine archipelago (to cover the early habitation and migrations period); (3) a list of artifacts from Philippine Colonial History (I will argue that this is also needed); and possibly (4) a list of artifacts from Philippine Contemporary History (say, after Philippine independence from the US. I'm a bit more iffy on this, but this includes things like Ninoy Aquino's bloody bulletproof vest, remnants from the Magsaysay plane crash, etc.) I agree that the content here should be kept as much as possible, but organizing it this way is just... misleading. - Alternativity (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Rename/Additinal comment - Upon considering more options, I now support the idea of renaming this as Archaeology of the Philipines, although I still feel it needs to be reorganized to avoid POV/synthesis issues, and rewritten to remove nationalist peacock terms. - Alternativity (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppet comment(s)
  • Suggestion i think it's better to be Rename i believe it's the best thing for this article. i don't see anything misleading on the article , but we should clean this up (by the issues of Peakockries , or any copyright matters) because i see a potential on this page in general they are part of Philippine archeology . (Dashcam (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC))
Further more, we need to recognized to the following methods for the benefit of the doubt:
  • A , check the references,
  • B, Rename the article for the best neutral name as possible
(According to WP:Source and WP:Delete ) (Dashcam (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC))
  • Keep there was no relation between the reliability and sock puppetry, and the article was proven to have a valid references and it had passed the categories of being an encyclopedic, all what we need is to review for if theirs a copyright or neutrality issues. (122.54.197.173 (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)) 122.54.197.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 19:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Since when a wikipedia article serves as an artifact /archaeological findings catalogue? If followed through completely, this article might developed into an extra long page. Imagine if a country with a longer and richer history and tradition than the Philippines — such as Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Greece, India or China, create this kind of article? A serial book or a catalogue is more suitable for this kind of long article/list. Plus in the "List of artifacts in Philippine history#Recorded contacts from foreign trades and affairs from contemporary kingdoms" section that contains obscure and spurious claims of Philippines past contacts to Greek kingdom of Ptolemy, Ancient India, and Persia is kind of stretching too far and went out of historiography discipline. But then again how I'm not surprise.., since this article was created by a sockpuppet with an agenda to rewrite Philippines history through creating a pseudohistory. Some of of these artifacts or findings is maybe valid, so with its references. However, considering the notorious bad practice of this sockpuppet to provide false refs; which providing a reference that look so valid, but after careful examination, mention nothing about the claimed section. I do not have the time and patience to examine each of these refs, but then again.., this subject is not suitable to be composed as a wikipedia article. So please delete it already. —  Gunkarta  talk  15:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Gunkarta: See Special:PrefixIndex/Archaeology of and Special:PrefixIndex/Archaeology in. Of course it shouldn't be comprehensive catalogue, but an outline of notable discoveries is a perfectly encyclopaedic topic. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Still did not convince me to keep this article. Plus thanks to Hunter05 and Dashcam that has invested their interest, this article has already developed into a confusing jumble of Philippines artifacts list, that some of them are even too obscure and unclear to be categorized as archaeological findings and lack of notability. Also some parts contains dubious claims with questionable refs, especially that "Recorded contacts from foreign trades and affairs from contemporary kingdoms" table that links Philippines to all that faraway civilizations including Ptolemaic Kingdom. Plus by inventing that obscure term "Archaic epoch" (?) of the Philippines history. Previously I've been interacted and witnessed the work of this JournalmanManila sockpuppet aka User:Hunter05 that created this article. I strongly believe he does not respect copyright, the scientific approach on writing history, nor possessed a required discipline in historiography, as he often spinning to fringe theory, inventing pseudohistory and resorting to spurious claims, even falsifying refs while editing to back up his claims. Possibly motivated by undue nationalistic agenda to rewrite and represent the history of his country in a more glorious light, he often invented a pseudohistory that despite the scarcity of archaeological findings, he describes pre-Hispanic Philippines as a strongly Indic-influenced civilization that somewhat in par with Angkorian Cambodia and ancient Java. Delete this article, and create a new "Archaeology of Philippines" article from scratch, free from all that rubbish, spurious claims and false refs, is more make sense and economic than trying to sort through or try to make sense of all this jumbled up information. —  Gunkarta  talk  23:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep i find out the list of references are comes from academic sourcing, even the external links are valid there are mentioned NO fabrication or pseudo-history so far in any stated items, because of supporting references and passed as encyclopedic (WP:Source) despite of it was created by a sock good for this is ; we should review and correct the terms of some stated artifacts instead
Suggestion considering of the Academic sourcing, I support of renaming it as Archaeology of the Philipines or Archaeology in the Philipines instead of deleting this and check the page for the clean up in shorter terms the page is legit but we should check and clean this up, we need to be sure of its accuracy for the improvement.(Pricedelink (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)) Pricedelink (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Potential keep but rename somehow. We have a series of articles on Philippines history and prehistory, but having something by way of overview is also potentially useful. This has the potential to become a useful list article. Whether or not some of the content is FRINGE is not an AFD issue: that can easily be removed by editing. As to the target, I am not sure that "archaeology" is right. Unless some one indicates that "archaic" is a term that is used, I would suggest "medieval" instead. In some Nordic countries "prehistoric ends at a similar date. I do not think it is so bad as to need TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete and start entirely afresh I have already expressed my position regarding the organization of the article in my comments above. I've had to think a lot about the usability of the sources in this article and in light of the suggestion of User:Gunkarta above, I'm now also convinced that we should start afresh with an Archeology of the Philippines article. Such an article, not being just a list, would be able to put the listed artifacts in context. I'd like to participate in writing that article, but I'll await the community's pleasure regarding next steps, first.- Alternativity (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
An addendum: Please note that the sockpuppet in question has had a history of borrowing citations from other wiki pages and using them to assert "facts" which aren't in the original. (I have particular concerns about his past use of Scott's Prehispanic Source Materials, and of Bellwood's "Pathos of Origin" (Paths of Origins - he doesn't even bother to get the title right.) .Gunkarta and I have both had to undo some of the damage done in the past, and the cost he is referring to is of reviewing the article line by line, and checking not only if the fact is in the reference cited, but whether it has been misrepresented through cherrypicking or through peacock terms and weasel words. To be fair, the sockpuppet has indirectly led to the improved coverage of precolonial Philippine articles. But that's because s/he keeps manufacturing fringe articles so fast that other editors are forced to come up with orthodox articles, lest the coverage of Philippine prehistory and early history be made up completely of fringe theories and nationalist/postcolonial mythologies. - Alternativity (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Note to closer: Alternativity has already !voted above. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep but prune , as WP: Source stated and rename also needs a little clean up because the content are Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax and any false histories. You may wish to review the criteria for WP:Deletion (124.104.94.92 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC))
Suggestion rename it to Philippine Archeology (124.104.94.92 (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)) 124.104.94.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note to closer: Gunkarta has already !voted above. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppet comment(s)
  • Support of Keeping and Renaming WHY? because as i checked the page and its content and it was a Legit, and i stand based on the wikipedia's policies on keeping and deleting and it had been passed to the academic sourcing WP:VERIFY, the content of this page had been analyzed and it comes material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. reliable sources include:
  • University-level textbooks
  • Books published by respected publishing houses
  • Magazines
  • Journals Published
  • Mainstream newspapers - Inquirer for example (As one of it source)
  • Academic sourcing
  • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
which is the STANDARD core for being and encyclopedic Source or references. all what we need now is only Clean it up and Renaming this and i think it is not appropriate to accusing anyone which stands for wiki standards. and it seems dubious why some users here if they know the policies of deletion , what i mean was we need to Review and check Sourcing of any article before we act on something like deletion as i said earlier this article had a potential just keep it clean! (Dashcam (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC))
Additional Comment PS before i decide to Keep or to Delete this content , i check the following Rules actually i looking on it flaws to decide if to keep or to trash it , but all of the sourcing and the external links are legit so far on my observations, so to be in neutral the only thing i am not sure was the terms that used so for now i Still convinced to Keep it for a while and support Renaming of it . (14:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC))
  • Comment. If the article is deleted, could it be copied to my userspace please? I'd like to try and salvage at least some of the content for other articles. – Joe (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please see this latest account edit also to make sure it is not the same IP: this edit. Shaded0 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. - Expressing support for Joe's request. Given the tainted slant of the text, I still think a total restart is more feasible than having to do a line by line revision for source verification and POV/Neutrality issue resolving. But it would be useful to have a draft version of this temporarily stored somewhere. While the text is oftentimes suspect and usually weasely-peacocky, the sources merit evaluating and checking one by one, and the best way to do that after a delete is to have a temporary draft. That said, may I ask where the community thinks it would be appropriate to discuss the organization of an Archaeology of the Philippines article? That topic will require a lot of input since anything earlier than the 1570s has to deal with the separate cultures and polities plus socio-technological eras. (Some combination of the proposed outlines of Scott (1994) and Jocano (2001), I suppose? I don' remember if Joaquin (1986) or Samuel Tan proposed anything specific. I'd have to check...) Anyway. Eager to get to work on that, but not sure if the List of artifacts in Philippine history talk page would be the right place, considering its afd nom. - Alternativity (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. While one shouldn't toss out an article simply because of the sockpuppet origins, the behavior here reminds me of the parable of bad fruit coming from a bad tree. And both the tree and fruit here are rotten. Delete and start over. Ifnord (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 20:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving



Proposals

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science&oldid=801734523"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA