Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

2 October 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 01	October 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Neil Crompton (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The limited news hits this person gets are routine coverage and not WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Saudi Arabia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khetasar

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

This is a WP: REDUNDANTFORK of Rathore rebellion (1679–1707). Such articles led to duplication. Also, out of the three sources, 2nd one inot a WP:RS. It is some personal commentary written by someone associated with the Kingdom. Hence it should be deleted and content, if something found relevant should be merged into the main article or the Durgadas Rathore. Admantine123 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mandan

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

There is no need of this standalone article as it is an insignificant event in the History of Rajasthan. The content should be merged into List of battles in Rajasthan or any article related to Shekhawats. There has been duplication of efforts by editors to convert minor events from some big events into seperate article leading to creation of WP: REDUNDANTFORK. Admantine123 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Admantine123 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Battle

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject has been nominated for AfD before and resulted in delete. Still not yet meet GNG or NMMA notability requirements, Sources are mainly fight announcements and results which are considered routine reports. Cassiopeia talk 01:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Missouri. Cassiopeia talk 01:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iniesta (footballer, born 1992)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seed oil misinformation

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

I am nominating the article Seed oil misinformation for deletion due to significant violations of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, particularly in the title and the overall tone of the article.

Title Bias: The title itself, "Seed oil misinformation," is particularly problematic and presupposes that any concerns or criticisms about the oils are automatically "misinformation." This is inherently biased and frames the entire article in a way that dismisses opposing views. A more neutral title would not take a definitive stance on the issue before even addressing the content of the article.
One-Sided Arguments: The article is primarily focused on discrediting the health concerns surrounding the oils and conveys the message that opposition to the oils is part of a conspiracy. This fails to acknowledge that there may be legitimate health concerns raised by some experts or individuals regarding the oils, including their potential role in inflammation and metabolic issues. This one-sided perspective also neglects to address concerns that industry or food processors may be putting the interest of profits above public health.
Dismissal of Legitimate Health Concerns: While the article casts doubt on health claims against the oils, it does not provide balanced coverage of the scientific debate. By labeling all criticisms as "misinformation," in the very title, the article skews heavily in favor of defending one side, ignoring the fact that some health professionals and researchers have raised legitimate concerns about the high omega-6 content, the harms of consuming easily oxidized oils, and the potential negative effects of consuming certain vegetable oils in excess.
Not a Neutral Presentation of Information: A neutral article would present the arguments for and against these oils without taking sides. Instead, this article seems intent on portraying the entire opposition as 'misinformation' or conspiracy-driven, especially considering the title, without giving due weight to evidence or legitimate concerns raised by those on the other side of the debate.

In conclusion, the title and content are both so heavily biased that simple editing may not be sufficient to bring this article in line with Wikipedia’s standards. For these reasons, I propose deleting this article. If editors believe the topic is worthy of coverage, it should be rebuilt from the ground up starting with a neutral title and perspective that fairly represents all viewpoints. ~ Mellis (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is so one sided and created with an agenda. It should be deleted. Sydpresscott (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For context, this article was initially PRODed by User:69.123.64.3(1 October 2024), for the following reason: Neutral Point of View. See Discussion at Talk:Seed_oil_misinformation~ Mellis (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the premise of this AfD is strongly flawed. ignoring the fact that some health professionals and researchers by this logic, HIV/AIDS denialism, should be called "HIV/AIDS controversy" because some health professionals and researchers supported this position when the majority of the scientific community didn't. During COVID misinformation was widely spread by medical professionals like Peter A. McCullough. That didn't mean it wasn't misinformation. This the appeal to authority fallacy which ignores the sources in the article which say that the expert consensus is that "seed oils" (as nebulous as that category is) are largely safe and that the current claims are misinformation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another source from the American Heart Association calling the claims bunk [1]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the title, Seed oil controversy was changed to Seed oil misinformation per this diff. Also, remember that WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, meaning that the weight given to viewpoints are to be reflective of their overall ratio among reliable sources, not simply fifty-fifty coverage.

This article looks like it intends to describe a fad diet (see its inclusion in the Fad Diets template as a high-carb diet), but doesn't have very much information on the rules or rationale for it to be a diet, even as it goes about rebutting them. The section on hexane is a good example. It says, without a citation, that proponents call the oils hazardous because of solvents, and then has four citations debunking that vaguely summarized claim. The article on the Paleolithic diet is a good example of NPOV for a fad diet, laying out the principles, health claims, and medical research around it. An article titled Paleo diet controversy or Paleo diet misinformation would be better served as a subsection in a main article, such as at Paleolithic_diet#Health_effects.

A follow-up question is whether the seed oil claims (or diet) are cohesive and notable enough to have a page dedicated to them. It's hard to confirm notability when what is being argued against is unclear. Azn bookworm10 (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sails past WP:GNG and the reasons given for deletion are spurious. Misuse of Afd. Bon courage (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yung-kil

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 North Korean World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engschrift

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

Initially PRODed by me, for the following reason:

In addition to the existing relying on a single source and vagueness issues (likely due to translation), the information in the article could easily be included onto the existing articles – DIN 1451, Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and Road signs in Austria – with the provision of sources, weakening the article's basis.

Deletion was objected, a merged was proposed instead. However, it is not possible to redirect one article to 3 others. Created a topic at WikiProject Typography over 4 months ago with no response. The article has no notability on its own, and is poorly written/explained. EthanL13 | talk 22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Transportation, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is covered in DIN 1451 in more detail than is here. Nothing in that article gives me the impression that a separate article on DIN 1451 Engschrift would be needed. I did search and Engschrift is always defined together with DIN 1451. Lamona (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DIN 1451, by condensing the Austria section into a single sentence and placing it under DIN_1451#Usage_examples (this is sourced - the article's only source refers to this). There is certainly no justification for a standalone article, as the target article provides better coverage for every other aspect. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I agree with a merge, since Engschrift (German for "narrow font/script") isn't strictly unique to DIN 1451. EthanL13 | talk 14:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is in this case, as the article makes clear. The term should lead the reader somewhere. Do you have more general redirect targets in mind? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article is much to go by – it can't even stick to its own subject in the lead. If it were possible, a disambiguation page (with DIN 1451 as its primary article) would be ideal, with links to Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and FE-Schrift. Just an idea, not sure if it's possible. EthanL13 | talk 09:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a disambiguation would be the way to go, given the several different types where the term is accepted as a variant, and the fact that it also represents the original German term for shorthand [2]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything as long as it's deleted. I recommend making it a redirect to Font#Width, the content can be spread out in the relevant articles if it is of any interest. Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We now have several closure suggestions including Delete, Merge and Redirect with different target articles mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rottweiler Records

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

NCORP fail Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indiana. Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly clearly meets the sense of an important label as given in the WP:MUSIC guideline, and the article has citations indicating the label gets regular coverage in music press. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I’d love to agree with you, because they seem really interesting, but… NCORP not NMUSIC is the right standard to judge them on, and everything I can see in the article is either passing coverage, or basic business process (the sale to new owners) coverage… but nothing giving any sort of extended coverage of the company itself. It’s all “band x signs to Rottweiler Records” and then a ton about band x, but nothing about the company. So weirdly they would count for the band’s notability, but not the company’s. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Pierre Angulaire High School

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

No source to proof notability. Gabriel (……?) 00:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Schools. Gabriel (……?) 00:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: No signs of notability on my own end. Fails NCORP. Best, Reading Beans 02:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]