Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science

From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Social_science

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.


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

Social science Proposed deletions

Language

Proverbs commonly said to be Chinese

Proverbs commonly said to be Chinese (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

While the topic of Chinese proverbs is, of course, notable (and I may even try to create such an article myself), this weirdly titled and unreferenced WP:ESSAY/ WP:OR mess featuring an unreferenced template from 2010 needs to go. ( WP:TNT, etc.). Related to this, the weird disambig-like mess at Chinese proverb should also go ( WP:SPEEDY?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Transparent Language

Transparent Language (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable language learning software. The article cites only the company's own website as source, and a search nets a product review in PCMag, various blog sites and the like, and that's about it; couldn't come up with a single RS sigcov references. Fails WP:GNG / WP:PROD. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Common phrases in Tripuri

Common phrases in Tripuri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Clear Violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Wikipedia is not a place to learn a new language. I would have nominated for CSD if we had a valid criteria for this. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 03:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 03:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 03:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 6. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 04:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kokborok. — Sagotreespirit ( talk) 04:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOTHOWTO. I don't think a redirect is necessary as it's probably not a phrase that is commonly searched for. Suonii180 ( talk) 09:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect does not seem useful. The article itself is a clear violation of nothowto. Geschichte ( talk) 10:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete (both of these, 'Common phrases...' and 'Learn...'; I forget now which is the redir and which the target) — per nom, WP isn't a language course. And redirect would be pointless, because who in their right mind is going to search for something like this? -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Claude Napier

Claude Napier (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Unsourced article. Yes, I can verify that he did indeed translate books. But there are no secondary sources to establish WP:GNG. article was deproded without explanation. Rusf10 ( talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 00:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete It fails to use adequate references to prove notability. Nexus000 ( talk) 02:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and productive translator. Large amount of secondary sources in Alan Napier's 2015 memoir Not Just Batman's Butler, published by McFarland Press, for example. If what the deletion supporters are saying is true, then translators like Steven T. Murray should be deleted since they imply that there is no notability for translators of best-selling Scandinavian literature. Why not wipe this whole category: Category:Swedish–English translators? Vogler ( talk) 07:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Your first argument is based on the fact that his son published a memoir. Is it any surprise to anyone that his son wrote about him in the memoir? WP:GNG requires that sources be "independent of the subject", his son's memoir clearly is not independent. Your second argument is WP:ALLORNOTHING. Maybe there are other articles that should be deleted (or maybe not), but it is irrelevant to this discussion. You have not put forth a valid argument to keep this article.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
We misunderstand each other here. To be clear my first argument is based on the fact that he is a notable translator judging by the huge amount of times his works have been mentioned in media of his time. Secondly I mentioned the memoir because it will verify facts that I thought you were disputing, it was not about making an argument. Thirdly I am well aware of WP:ALLORNOTHING, so pardon the rhetorics. If my arguments so far are not enough, do you think that the fact that Burgtheater ("One of the world's most important theater") staged one of his plays makes him notable perhaps? Vogler ( talk) 16:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. I've never disputed whether any of this was verifiable. In fact, in my nomination statement I said I could verify that he translated books. The topic passes WP:V, but not everything verifiable is notable. So while his son's book helps verify, it does not provide any notability. The play may make a weak case for notability, but more information is needed. Did he just provide translation for the play or was he also involved with directing or producing it? Was the play itself notable? (not just the theater) Was his son moved involved with the play than he was? The way you cited the sources in the article, it is near impossible determine the answers to these questions. His son is notable, but that notability is not automatically passed on to him.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Apart from the translation work, he was also the managing director and designer at the Birmingham Guild of Handicraft for which there is coverage in works such as Jewelry and Metalwork in the Arts and Crafts Tradition and By Hammer and Hand: The Arts and Crafts Movement in Birmingham. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:BIO + WP:GNG, not enough sigcov found which cover himself sufficiently CommanderWaterford ( talk) 17:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep The Birmingham Guild of Handicraft was a significant member of the Arts and Craft movement and important in the history of the city. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 14:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The Polis Method

The Polis Method (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I took a very deep breath before this nomination. This article is a magnificent feat of prestidigitation, but lacks any single source that refers to 'The Polis Method' outside of the school's own platforms, blogs or articles contributed by the designer of this method. Pretty much every citation doesn't refer to the method, but is used to stand up a concept referred to in the article, so cite 6 for instance talks about the 'full immersion approach' but not the Polis Method as it impacts or utilises that approach. And so on for pretty much every other citation in a very extensive list indeed. When you start to strip out the citations that just prove a mentioned concept exists but has no reference at all to the Polis Method, you are left with very thin beer indeed - and that almost all down to the designer and the Polis School. There is no independent, reliably sourced content here that actually tells us that the Polis Method is recognised as a concept, an academically valid approach or even, indeed, a thing. And so, with a heavy heart, I'm proposing it be deleted as a magnificent monument to Original Research that fails WP:GNG and breaches WP:OR; WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH. Oh, and I agree with the tags too - and think the problem is so deep rooted there that it would be impossible to weed out the promotion and POV without invoking, as I am effectively, WP:TNT. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Alexandermcnabb for your comments. Would it help delay blowing up this article if I provided you with a list of "(sources that refer) to 'The Polis Method' outside of the school's own platforms, blogs or articles contributed by the designer of this method"? I would continue editing that article now to still try and save it from obliteration but I need to address very important personal and professional matters within the next 2-3 days that I would have to delay the editing and incorporation of these sources until then? If you think this request is reasonable and would like to see the list of sources I'm referring to, then I can post that here in this conversation. I hope you would consider. Thank you very much. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes ( talk) 07:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I managed to find some time today to continue addressing the issue. Let me add that I will not contest the comment that I wrote this article more like a research paper than a Wikipedia article. I hope to correct this after the respite of I requested. But I will also add that what I wrote does not really reflect the fact that there are published articles written / made by parties not at all linked to the Polis Institute. For those articles written by the author himself, they're usually together with another, peer reviewed and published by reputable institutions (e.g. universities journals and publishing houses). A couple of these sources were in the References already. The reason I decided not to refer to the others is that most were not in English and may not be appreciated by English readers. But if it helps, I'd like to put them all in here already.
2015, Gala Lopez de Lerma, Análisis comparativo de metodologías para el aprendizaje de la lengua latina, Universitat de Barcelona, soutenue le 18-12-2015, cf https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/393957#page=1, p. 83
2015, Marco Riccuci, “Per una disamina del metodo Polis: un “nuovo” metodo glottodidattico per insegnare il greco antico come L2?” in lucida intervalla Časopis za klasične nauke A Journal of Classical Studies 44 , p. 155-179
2015, Michal Kabat, « Nauka jezyka starogreckiego w sposob czynny - metoda POLIS », pages 134-136, Nowy Filomata XIX 2015 (1)
2016, Marco Ricucci, « Questione di metodo ? Note storico-culturali sulla via carsica del metodo “naturale” (o diretto) per l’insegnamento del greco antico nell’occidente latino(fono), in Thamyris, n. s. 7 (2016), 47-74, https://dialnet.unirioja.es › descarga › articulo
2019, Francesca Dell’Oro, "Plongeon dans le grec ancien : compte-rendu des premiers ateliers de grec ancien oral de l’Université Grenoble Alpes", in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 132-145 (see especially pp. 134-135)
2020, Francesca Dell' Oro, « Le défi des langues anciennes à l’oral dans les écoles de Suisse Romande » in Méthodes et modèles de l'apprentissage des langues anciennes, vivantes et construites, hier et aujourd'hui , édité par Francesca DELL' ORO, Cahiers du CLSL, n° 62, p. 67-100 (cf. https://edipub-unil.ch/index.php/clsl/article/view/947) Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes ( talk) 09:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to add these:
2019, Christophe Rico, « La méthode Polis » in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 193-216
2021, Christophe Rico and Michael Kopf, “Teaching Ancient Greek by the Polis Method”, in Communicative Approaches for Ancient Languages, edited by Mair E. Lloyd and Steven Hunt,  Bloomsbury Academic, London / Oxford / New York/ New Delhi / Sydney, 141-149." Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes ( talk) 09:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The easier bit first: I think that at least some of the newly provided sources are effective in showing some baseline notability in the field. The Dell'Oro and Riccuci articles are good that way. The de Lerma ref is a thesis, which puts it at a slightly lower level. The Kabat ref I was unable to pull up, but at least the title looks promising. So I think for a concise and neutrally written article, notability could be signed off on.
The larger problem is that this is not concise or neutral. It's very much a promotional piece in the sense that many scientific journal articles are promotional - the writer showcases a product, argues how necessary the development was, how useful the outcome, and how it matches the requirements of whatever funding body provided the backing. An encyclopedia wants none of that. Along with that comes great over-indulgence in detail - again, fine for a journal article, not for an encyclopedia. And it would be a big job for any editor to cut this text down to suitable dimensions. So: not sure we are in TNT territory, but I think the author would be doing everyone and the topic a favour by moving this back to draft and turning it from an academic argument, into a concise article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this note and to @ Elmidae for the constructive criticism. Let me edit this article now and perhaps you can then tell me if I should still move this to draft. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes ( talk) 07:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

-patnam

-patnam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Dictionary definition about a place name suffix, unencyclopedic.

I found this article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-wal (2nd nomination), and believe it has the same deletion rationale. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I am also adding the below articles to this nomination:

Pur (placename element) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
-abad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 19:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't believe the deletion of -wal was particularly well-informed, so I'd be weary of using it as a standard of comparison. The articles -abad, -pur and -patnam are not about place names, but about placename suffixes, and extremely common ones too. Content about broad patterns of toponymy is certainly encyclopedic, and the only meaningful question that I see here is about the best way to present that content: as separate articles, or merged into a smaller number of pages covering the broader topics. – Uanfala (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment Sorry, I will correct my nomination rationale (missed the word suffix), but I still am unsure if placename suffixes as a whole are encyclopedic. After doing more research, it appears that there is an entire category of these suffixes, so these other ones may have to be evaluated individually. Natg 19 ( talk) 20:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I'm of the same opinion then as now. We've merged this stuff regularly over the years, from E (prefix) to xe (pronoun). It is just a question of where, and we should be working that out rather than nominating these things for deletion. Uncle G ( talk) 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems like the only deletion rationale is WP:DICDEF? I'm not sure if this is really a reverse disambiguation article, a definition per WP:DICDEF, or a page that requires WP:GNG to be met, but I'm hesitant to vote !delete on a page, even a poorly formatted one, where I learned something interesting, used the page as a launching point, and kept exploring (same with -abad) and while I'm not sure how to assess its notability, I'm not sure deleting this makes the encyclopaedia any better. SportingFlyer T· C 20:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete -patnam per WP:NOTDIC. It is a definition and a list of examples. On the other hand, Pur (placename element) might possibly satisfy WP:WORDISSUBJECT, though I am not yet sufficiently convinced one way or the other. Cnilep ( talk) 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oikonyms in Western and South Asia solves all three of these and they can all be redirected there, as (when the lists and the ridiculous flags are subtracted) there's actually much there as in these, except that I found sources for all of it. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 11:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • -patnam will need to be added to that list, but I don't mind a redirect. I just don't think this information should be lost. SportingFlyer T· C 12:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • There are lots of sources for -patnam. I've been trying to find the good ones. Uncle G ( talk) 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I don't mind a merge/redirect to somewhere, but I don't believe these articles should be standalone articles. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Gender euphoria

Gender euphoria (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Not a notable neologism. An attempt to redirect to gender dysphoria was reverted, and discussion on that talk page suggests there is not WP:MEDRS coverage to justify any content on this neologism. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge with gender dysphoria ( Trimton ( talk) 16:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)). As per Wikipedia guidelines, articles prove notability either via a topic specific notability guideline, or WP:GNG. I don't find any specific guideline applicable. GNG states
    • ""Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."
    • ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."
I just went through the search results for gender euphoria in Google News and Scholar (which includes Google Books). As per the sources there, gender euphoria fails GNG as a standalone article, because reliable sources are either primary or insignificant coverage. The insignificant coverage consists of mentions in connection with gender dysphoria, that's why I propose Merge. Coverage might be enough for a standalone article in two or three years. Trimton ( talk) 16:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge It's not a neologism, being attested with the stated meaning since the 1990s [2] [3]. I could see a case for a merge-and-redirect, but not deletion. As for the WP:MEDRS concern, the article whose abstract says that gender euphoria has yet to be rigorously defined contains, in the text, a brief review of what had been written to date about it. (As MEDRS observes, the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says.) A review section is naturally not as comprehensive as a review article, but it is enough to indicate that the term is attested and even defined, albeit imprecisely. McGuire and Morrow (2020) defines and employs the term and qualifies as a review. There may only be a limited amount to be said, but we can say something, and the turns of phrase in the current text aren't so bad to start with; hence, merge. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    I address these below. Crossroads -talk- 04:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment The two sources cited for the term being used since the 1990s don't really do that. One refers to the name of a newsletter intentionally meant as a pun, rather than a defined medical phenomenon. The other appears to mention gender euphoria in the title only. OsFish ( talk) 09:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Use as a play on words is still a use. The second does not mention it in the title, but in the text: I do not wish to suggest that a sex-change operation is the only way a womancan be(come) a man. Kate Bornstein’s Gender Outlaw (London: Routledge, 1994)provides an interesting account of the (im)possibilities of achieving gender euphoria through a sex change. Changing "dys-" to "eu-" is an obvious enough move, so it's not surprising the coinage has been around for a while. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gender dysphoria is a medical topic, so sourcing about it, including about topics that purport to be its counterpart, need to comply with MEDRS. As one of the few sources on Gender euphoria states in its abstract, gender euhproia has thus far not been rigorously defined or operationalized within health research. It doesn't have enough non-MEDRS sourcing to stand on its own either, tbh. -- Equivamp - talk 16:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment @ and XOR'easter: Status as a neologism (... neologismosity) has no causal relation to notability, or did I miss something? An article subject can fail notability even though its title is not a neologism. Conversely, an article subject can be notable even though its title is a neologism. In that case, we'd rename (to a plain English description), not delete, I would think, as per WP:NEO. Trimton ( talk) 17:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, all possible combinations of the predicates "neologism" and "notable" are possible in principle. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • There is a reason I used both words. It's fairly clear to me this is a neologism. While I don't think it's notable separately from gender dysphoria, opinions may differ. The term is a well-defined term, which is different than some of the articles that are nominated at AFD. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is not a neologism, being at least dated to the 1990s as XOR'easter cites. I would support merge if it were a subordinate term to gender dysphoria, but it is on equal conceptual footing despite being a less common term. Jmill1806 ( talk) 19:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
What does "equal conceptual footing" mean? -- Equivamp - talk 23:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
If we sketched a tree of concepts related to gender, GD and GE would be at the same horizontal level of that tree. GE is not, for example, a subcategory or supercategory of GD. If it were, I think merging would be more reasonable. Jmill1806 ( talk) 14:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
There's no Wikipedia policy for inclusion based on this conceptual-footing theory of yours. -- Equivamp - talk 18:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Equivamp is right, Jmill1806. Some concepts on the same "level", even opposites to Wikipedia-notable topics, are not themselves notable. They lack sufficient significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and thus fail Wikipedia's general notability criteria. They also fail subject-specific criteria. Take religions. Islam has an article but Non-Islam and London Woodland Witches do not (and should not, for now), even though some people use the concepts [4] [5] Trimton ( talk) 21:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello Equivamp and Trimton. You raise good points. Of course I'm aware there's no such policy. I'm just explaining it as part of my reasoning for WP:GNG. Policy is never going to have enough specifics to make every decision, so we need to Use Common Sense and think critically about each case. To me, it seems like the conceptual footing of the term helps us make sense of sources that use both GD and GE. Does that make sense? Jmill1806 ( talk) 20:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Eh, it's not hard to include it on an equal conceptual footing. You'd just add a sentence somewhere that says something like "The opposite of GD is called gender euphoria, i.e., having positive feelings". You wouldn't need to make 50% of the article be about the concept. And presumably there's another word somewhere for the historically normal human existence, which is being so busy trying to survive that you didn't really spend a lot of time thinking about exactly how you feel about the relationship between your body and your identity. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Equivamp said, Gender dysphoria is a medical topic, so sourcing about it, including about topics that purport to be its counterpart, need to comply with MEDRS. In no way is this on "equal conceptual footing" with gender dysphoria (GD). GD is in the DSM-5; this is a vague concept ("not been rigorously defined or operationalized") that has been tossed around now and again in some papers. Regarding the claim that McGuire and Morrow (2020) defines and employs the term and qualifies as a review, here is the entirety of what they say on it: Several major constructs have been identified and investigated as contributors to gender identity, including gender development, body image, gender dysphoria/euphoria, and genderqueer or nonbinary identity....Newer nonbinary measures allow for a full spectrum of identity measurement, assess both dysphoria and comfort in affirmed gender (sometimes called gender euphoria), and meet assumptions of longitudinal measurement, meaning TGD clients can take the same measure multiple times, regardless of where they may be in a transition process [32]. This is plainly not a secondary source giving significant coverage to this topic; it is a passing mention or a dic-def at best. This paper is in a dermatology journal (i.e., not the relevant fields of psychology or psychiatry). Further, this study of respondents to an online questionnaire is not a secondary source in the sense that WP:MEDRS requires: Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations....Any given primary source may be contradicted by another. The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies....primary sources normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete and typically less reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive. Oh, and: Other indications that a journal article may not be reliable are...its content being outside the journal's normal scope. The fact is that this topic lacks the secondary MEDRS sources needed to have an article. As for the idea that we can merge it, well, any such content will have to be removed from the GD article for failing MEDRS (the current text on this concept is cited to ethics and dermatology journals). Then we're left with a redirect not mentioned in the destination. The answer is deletion. Crossroads -talk- 04:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • About the idea of not mentioning gender euphoria in gender dysphoria: Not everything dermatology and bioethics journals write about is skin, hair and metaethics, or has to be. If they write about the psychological effects of dermatological treatment, or the ethical significance of GD/GE, they are writing in a medical capacity, and Wikipedia can cite them on what they write (in gender dysphoria) if they're secondary sources and due (which they are Bradford 2019 is in this case). Trimton ( talk) 07:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I concur with Trimton here, generally speaking. The sources are in scope for what they are discussing (they would be out of scope for, say, the pharmacokinetics of anti-androgens, probably). We're not trying to cover the quantitative success rate or side-effect incidence of a specific drug, but to see whether a concept has been attested and defined at least semi-formally. The relevant literature is going to be psychological and bioethical more than biochemical. Short but to-the-point discussions of a topic typically aren't enough to substantiate an article dedicated to it, but they can indicate that it's worth covering as part of a larger whole. Gender euphoria doesn't yet have a detailed definition with a breakdown into bullet-pointed criteria, but it's documented well enough that we can say the term is employed as the conceptual inverse of gender dysphoria without yet having a detailed breakdown into bullet points. A source calling a concept a major construct is an indication that it's significant enough to mention even if they don't pour out the word count about it. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Trimton, you may wish to read WP:MEDRS and the explanatory page WP:Biomedical information - medical ethics journals are generally focused on ethics, not on medicine, even if the topics overlap - for this reason, most ethics journals are only considered reliable for the ethical issues, not for any medical information they may contain by necessity. That being said, and I don't know if this would work here as I haven't investigated the sourcing in those journal articles, sometimes ethics journals cite MEDRS compliant sources for their sources, so they can be a good starting point to find better sources. Also note that there is a general consensus among editors, not just in medicine but elsewhere, that experts in one field publishing in a completely different field should be taken with a grain of salt - there's either better sources that can be found, or there's a reason that no expert in the specific field has said the same thing. Crossroads wasn't referring to the notability here but to the ability to merge content - the information present in this short article right now is virtually all biomedical information that requires MEDRS - and as such, if it is not MEDRS compliant, there is nothing to merge. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi Berchanhimez, I did read them carefully and found nothing on either page that would support your specialisation requirement. Going beyond MEDRS and requiring specialisation makes ( WP:COMMON) sense when the question is complex like, if a particular drug cures cancer. You won't get a reliable answer to that from a geriatric care ethicist. But GE is not that complex or WP:EXTRAORDINARY that bioethicists or dermatologists (that work with trans people) couldn't write about it with authority. It's simply the fact that trans people may not feel dysphoric about their entire body. They may like the parts that match their preferred gender, and some authors call this gender euphoria. The phenomenon exists widely enough (see the non academic sources linked, and more such as Advocate). Since we know it exists (in relevant subpopulations of the gender dysphoric), we should not apply anything beyond the letter of WP:MEDRS and WP:Biomedical information. The situation would be different with my hypothetical cancer drug. We wouldnt know if it works just from reading about it in a bioethics journal, and reading testimonies about 'how this drug cured me'. We do know here. Merge with gender dysphoria but I add: we must clarify that the word 'gender euphoria' isn't an established term like dysphoria is. Trimton ( talk) 00:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Maybe you missed the part of the section titled Biomedical journals which goes into how journals may specialize and common sense dictates it also means that writers may specialize. That doesn't even get into the fact that the two "MEDRS" in the article right now are small primary studies - which are explicitly stated to be virtually useless for MEDRS - only large, well conducted, and extremely necessary primary studies are usable as MEDRS, and others do not meet that criteria. Furthermore, you may wish to note that policies and guidelines are to reflect consensus, and if consensus is against a policy/guideline, it's the policy/guideline that's wrong/incomplete. The consensus among editors on the English Wikipedia is that for medical sources, sources written in journals or by experts from a completely different field must be taken with a large grain of salt and carefully evaluated, as I explained above. If that's not clear in the pages you're reading, then it's not that the consensus is wrong, it's that the page may need to be updated to clarify the consensus. The information in this article is not compliant with MEDRS sourcing requirements and as such there's nothing to merge - that doesn't mean that MEDRS-compliant information can't be added to another article, just that this short article has nothing of use. If you wish to challenge that consensus, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page of gender dysphoria to discuss whether your desired additions should be made or not - but alas, that's out of the scope of this deletion discussion and I will not make further comment here on MEDRS issues relating to another page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
          • the quote from WP:MEDRS goes Journals may specialize in particular article types. A few, such as Evidence-based Dentistry (ISSN 1462-0049), publish third-party summaries of reviews and guidelines published elsewhere. Nowhere does it say we shall not use the writings of generalists. If what you say is consensus beyond my suggestion of common sense, why isn't it in the guideline? Where else is there evidence of this purported consensus? You are right that Ashley & Ells 2007 [bioethics] (and Benestad 2010, not in the article) are primary sources. But Bradford 2019 [dermatology] is a secondary source: The construct of Gender Euphoria has been suggested by several writers (25, 26). For instance, Ashley and Ells (25)(...) Trimton ( talk) 14:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
            • See my 04:53, 25 April 2021 comment. MEDRS defines a secondary source as review articles and the like. It also specifically cautions against using introduction and conclusion sections of primary research, as I noted. Crossroads -talk- 23:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
            • MEDRS says A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include and then what you cited, not This is limited to. Bradford fits the defintion precisely; it summarises two primary sources to provide an overview. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
              • Trimton, this is exactly the problem - it summarizes two selected sources - that is not providing an overview, that is merely citing two sources. Providing an overview (what a secondary source does) requires examining multiple (not just two) primary sources and comparing, contrasting, and examining their methodology to provide an overview of all current research/understanding on a subject. Your attempts at wordsmithing your way into defining a primary source as a secondary one are disruptive and you need to stop. The introduction or discussion sections of primary studies are virtually never in depth enough to classify as secondary sources. Selective cherrypicking of sources in one primary source is not secondary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
              • maybe you should change the wording one or more in MEDRS. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 00:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge to Gender dysphoria. The concepts are related, as different points of view on issues around gender assignment and gender identity. And for better or worse, the medicalized version is likely to be discussed more widely. Cnilep ( talk) 22:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. What I'm seeing offered in support of keeping or merging seems very thin. If it is likely to become a defined subject of sustained formal medical or psychological study, then we should wait until it does. Trying to piece together how a variety of people have used the collocation "gender euphoria" as if there is an established coherent underlying concept before that work has been done in the literature becomes original research. "The opposite of gender dysphoria" isn't enough. OsFish ( talk) 09:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The meaning doesn't have to be "piece[d] together"; the references are perfectly clear that "the opposite of gender dysphoria" is what they mean. There's just not a lot to say beyond that. It's established and coherent, though not with enumerated diagnostic criteria. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • "The opposite of phenomenon X" is not in itself a coherent definition. Diagnostic criteria do not all have a spectrum where both extremes indicate the presence of a condition. For example, the meaningful opposite of self-harm is not an obsessively safe and healthy lifestyle. It's just the absence of self-harm. This is why it is better as Wikipedians to wait until there is a coherent positive diagnostic description established in the literature. OsFish ( talk) 04:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Gender dysphoria. As discussion here has established, the phrase does exist in literature but there is insufficient basis for a Wikipedia article on the concept. The Keep rationale offered by User:Jmill1806 is just plain bizarre: notability doesn't work that way. MartinPoulter ( talk) 10:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crossroads and OsFish. I'd come here to say what they said. Vaticidal prophet 14:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with Crossroads but will expand my opinion as well - a neologism should not be based solely on temporal newness, but also based on both professional and colloquial adoption. A term that's been around for centuries can still be a neologism if it never got widespread adoption - once a term has gotten widespread adoption it can no longer be a neologism, but until then, it may still be no matter how many decades have passed since it was "coined". I personally do not, based on the sources here, in the article, and from a google search, see enough usage to consider it more than a neologism at this point. The vast majority of usage is from activists and people who are not medical professionals - whereas "gender dysphoria" has become an accepted medical term, this is hardly used in a medical sense, much less become accepted as such. Wikipedia doesn't need to "lead the charge" and can wait to have an article, or even a redirect, for this term until if/when it becomes widely used. I appreciate the work of those trying to improve coverage of gender dysphoria and transgender topics on Wikipedia, but we must keep in mind that it's our job to write an encyclopedia - and be sure that we don't let our desire to improve coverage of a topic lead to inadvertent overt activism for a topic that is beyond what we should be doing as an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - For the reasons cogently outlined by Crossroads and Berchanhimez. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge, with specific redirect -- I agree that it's not sufficiently widely used or precisely (medically) defined to warrant its own article. But it is used in some medical sources, and these are not read only by medical personnel. We should mention it in Gender dysphoria as a term that, while not yet strictly defined or incorporated into standard medical terminology, nevertheless sees some use as a convenient shorthand. And the redirect should point fairly precisely to that brief discussion of the word in Gender dysphoria, so that the interested reader need not scour the whole article to find it, though of course they can do so for relevant information. -- Thnidu ( talk) 02:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - I generally agree with the WP:MEDRS arguments. We should avoid the risk of suggesting medical authority where there is none. Marcus Aurelius 07:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus regarding whether to merge or delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - per the WP:MEDRS concerns outlined above. As and when the term gets significant usage in reliable, independent sources that meet the various standards we have for medical articles, then the term deserves an article. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Gender dysphoria. This appears to be a nascent idea without too much hard scientific discussion. Per WP:NOPAGE, what's worthy of mention about this topic can be placed on a more solid page where it has good context, especially seeing as this is solely defined as the opposite of gender dysphoria. Not to mock the concept or the genderqueer community, but a part of me has to question this trend where in an attempt to be inclusive a handful of people are simply creating pseudoscientific categories of the "norm", so to speak, so as to not make a certain community feel stigmatized by a label. - Indy beetle ( talk) 07:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge to gender dysphoria. It's a term that developed in response to gender dysphoria and, in high-quality sources, appears to be discussed in conjunction with it. – Roscelese ( talkcontribs) 14:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Natty Dreadlocks

Natty Dreadlocks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This clearly falls under Wikipedia:NOTURBANDICTIONARY (Google it, the first link is urban dictionary and exactly the same words written here). No reliable sources provided or found to support this as anything but a slang term. Rusf10 ( talk) 04:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Yeah, agree. Erinius ( talk) 16:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 04:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 04:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The current content seems very trivial. Redirect to Natty Dread, where the origin of the album name should ideally be detailed? Geschichte ( talk) 21:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 08:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If there is a need to include the term, it could be inserted into Dreadlocks (if an actual source could be found), and without the list of albums. LizardJr8 ( talk) 13:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Prodded articles


History

LacusCurtius

LacusCurtius (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No significant coverage per WP:WEB. SL93 ( talk) 17:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: The article was created in 2004 by the website's owner. SL93 ( talk) 18:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SL93 ( talk) 18:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Quintus Flavius Egnatius Placidus Severus

Quintus Flavius Egnatius Placidus Severus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY, no indication of notability (what offices he held, what he did that makes him stand out), and lacks significant WP:COVERAGE in sources. The creator was known for creating articles of the sort indiscriminately, and is long since banned apparently because of it. 11 years later and nobody has even bothered to place the article in a Wikiproject or relevant categories. Avilich ( talk) 17:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Avilich ( talk) 17:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Subject was co-head (vicar) of the diocese of Italy in 365. Does this qualify him for WP:NPOL? 15 ( talk) 19:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". We only know him as a footnote of sorts, no WP:COVERAGE of any actual activity of his. Avilich ( talk) 15:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you provide s source for that? Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Peterkingiron, p. 239 of the source at the bottom of the article ( [6] not open access). 15 ( talk) 15:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That source (Settipani) isn't academic, it's a work on genealogy of very questionable reliability. The only primary source for Severus is a compilation of 4th-century AD laws which only mentions the man in passing. I should also mention that the full name, "Quintus Flavius Egnatius Placidus Severus", seems to be partly made up by Settipani. Avilich ( talk) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. As written, the article uses the noun "politician" as his occupational label in the first sentence, but then fails to say a single word about how he was a politician — it otherwise focuses entirely on his family genealogy, without any reliable sources or any discernible notability claim. As for whether being vicar of a diocese would get him over WP:NPOL or not, I'd have to say no — it might get him over our notability criteria for religious figures if there were actual reliable sources present that counted toward WP:GNG, but it's not an "inherently" notable political role that would exempt him from having to have any sources. Bearcat ( talk) 15:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - If 15's information is correct, he should be notable. The vicarius was effectively a provincial governor, or rather one rank above that, governing a Roman diocese consisting of several provinces, in principle 1/12 of the Roman Empire. This is not a question of the kind of diocese that has a bishop. Being a senator in a period when the senate had little power would certainly be NN. NPOL is a useful guideline, but applies primarily to elected officials, not appointed ones. "Vicar" means a deputy. In the church sense, the person is the deputy of the rector. In this case, it means the emperor's deputy for ruling Italy. If that is what he was, we should no more delete him than we would the governor of North Dakota or Georgia. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
We don't or shouldn't have single-sentence articles which are just X person was governor of Y place and nothing more. Whether he was elected or not is irrelevant, since all high officials of the empire were appointed. Most vicars known to us are sparsely documented nobodies. Don't make this more complicated than it is. Avilich ( talk) 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete I do dislike the way this kind of article creates pages of online cruft based on no sourcing whatsoever. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Michael Ludeke

Michael Ludeke (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I do not think this article on an Australian writer and historian meets WP:GNG or WP:WRITER. There is one footnote, to an article about the launch of one of his books. There are two other links, of which one is a deadlink and the other is to the subject's publishing company's website. The article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2009. I have not been able to find any coverage to add. Tacyarg ( talk) 18:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 18:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 18:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg ( talk) 18:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 13:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The author's books look to me like relatively light weight works, so that this should not be enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

House of Galluweger

House of Galluweger (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:BEFORE done. At best this would appear to a part of Somali history with sparse documentation. The ({{Find sources AFD|title=House of Galluwegers}}) / (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL) / (Find sources:  Google ( books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL) will only yield forks and mirrors of this article. As always, happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 11:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This article has two sources, one of which looks like an English language academic work and the other probably French. It is thus not unsourced. I do not know enough of Somali history to know if this dynasty was important or not, but there are enough blue links in the article for it not to be an orphan. If the allegation is that it is an unnecessary fork, please tell us what it should be merged back to. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete The article contains two sources that aren't even refrenced and makes no mentions of House of Galluweger. One of them Virginia Luling, Virginia (2002). Somali Sultanate. is written to be from HAAN Publishing which it is not. I searched the name "House of Galluweger" on google and it looks to be mentioned 1 time in a online fictional romance novel Black Vampire Anthology. User Rashicy took this and then made a hoax page with it. Escorban-Han ( talk) 03:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, being in black vampire novels does not make this notable. PrisonerB ( talk) 10:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I suspect this is not a hoax in any way, but it fails WP:V and is irreparable as it stands. Would not oppose draftifying. Srnec ( talk) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this - Should it be merged, redirected, and/or draftified per User:Srnec and User:Peterkingiron?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 17:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

History Proposed deletions

History categories

for occasional archiving



Proposals