Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

1 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 31	January 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Kim Yu-jae

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mahmudul Hassan

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. A civil servants with a non notable position at Dhaka North City Corporation TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Alam

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

Fails WP:NPOL, failed to win the election. Also, no SIGCOV coverage found so fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Azad

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

Being a mayor does not pass WP:NPOL, Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom on the basis of failing WP:SIGCOV. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Krishna Bantawa

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV as per Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!}. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Cecilia Allen D'Mello

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

Fails WP:NPOL and sources are not SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local representative of a larger city is not considered notable per NPOL. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Nawa Raj Subba

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nawa Raj Subba

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

Not meeting WP:BLP. Not a single in depth coverage of the subject in any neutral source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Poetry, and Nepal. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There has been no independent news media coverage or reliable sources about this person since the article was created in 2009 and salted in 2017. Subject does not pass GNG or NBIO Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has published stuff buy nobody seems to have cited it. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Arina Cherniavskaia

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sei Kawahara

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BeritaSatu World

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

No findable references. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia. UtherSRG (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a bit confused about how this article relates to BTV (Indonesian TV channel). The Indonesian language Wikipedia article id:IDTV suggests that BeritaSatu World was the name of the channel from 2014-2023 and that the name of the channel is now BTV (or maybe IDTV according to the infobox?), which would suggest that the two English language Wikipedia articles are probably redundant and are just talking about two names for the same channel. But the two English language Wikipedia articles BeritaSatu World and BTV (Indonesian TV channel) are full of contradictory information. The article BTV (Indonesian TV channel) says that the channel is now called BTV, that it was formerly called BeritaSatu, and that IDTV is its sister channel. Meanwhile BeritaSatu World says that the name of the channel is currently BeritaSatu TV (BTV?) and that it was formerly called both BeritaSatu World and IDTV, while BTV is its sister channel. A Google search didn't shed much additional light, so I'm left quite confused about the timeline here and how all these different channel renamings and acquisitions relate to one another. I'm pretty sure I support deleting BeritaSatu World (and maybe add BeritaSatu Sports to the nomination?) because at least BTV (Indonesian TV channel) has some sourcing and I think that's probably(?) the name that the channel goes by now. But hopefully someone with better Indonesian than mine can help work out what's going on here. Alternatively, maybe merge all three channel articles into a new article for the parent company B Universe? MCE89 (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional monarchy

AfDs for this article:

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

Traditional monarchy, as a distinct system of governance, ideology or political affiliation is not widely used enough to be considered WP:NOTE. There was obviously a lot of work put into this article, and I can sympathise with how awful it must feel to see it nominated for deletion. However, this topic has a lot of redundancy and little notability as a distinct subject.

A lot of the alleged traditional monarchists in this article never use the label. Charles A. Coulombe has 0 mentions outside of Wikipedia of being a traditional monarchist. Coulombe is both a traditionalist and a monarchist, but he never uses the term traditional monarchist. Even Rafael Gambra Ciudad, who has the most extensive mentions of Monarquía tradicional, has zero sources describing him as a traditional monarchist (that I can find). Several of the quotes throughout this article discuss monarchism but do not mention traditionalism. The label of a traditional monarchist is also frequently applied to movements that do not describe themselves as traditional monarchists. A lot of the connections to traditional monarchism seem to be made by the editor, rather than the sources.

A brief survey of the academia on traditional monarchy shows that it is rarely mentioned and when it is it is not described as a distinct ideology from traditionalism or monarchism but a combination of both. This leads to many of the sources used by this article not mentioning the term traditional monarchy.

I am aware that this article relies on a lot of Spanish sources, something I'm by no means fluent in, so I could have totally missed something big. However, even with Google Translate and searching basic Spanish terms, almost nothing comes up.

At the end of the day, this article reads more like an article about monarchism and would have substantially fewer issues if it were.}} Clubspike2 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 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 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the article's content has been added by one user, Sr L, since 24 November. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have been the most interested in develop the article, there were others that preceded me and even are equivalent of this articles in other wikipedias. Sr L (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I feel that it is very picky to focus on a largely nominal and terminological issue to propose deleting the page. For those, I think it would be better to rename the article as "Integral Monarchy" (used in Tsarist circles), "Corporate Monarchy" (used in Habsburg loyalist circles), "Classical Monarchy" (used in some academic circles), "Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism" (which could be the most formalist possible name for Wikipedia), etc. of alternative names that exist for this type of monarchy that the article describes according to what various legitimist and counterrevolutionary groups, that are anti-liberal and anti-absolutist alike, adhere to.

Secondly, I must mention that the concept of "Traditional Monarchy", according to the definition that it adheres to on a corporate and aristocratic form of government according to medieval political philosophy or "scholasticism" (such as the Thomistic philosophy of law and Augustinian political theology in the Christian context, which also develop Aristotelian and Platonic political philosophy, which in turn its followers admit to having conclusions similar or equal to those of other traditional philosophies that are grouped as "non-modernist" such as Confucianism or Vedism), allows that naturally the Iberian concept of "Traditional Monarchy" can also refer to such forms of monarchical government that maintain similar qualities in reaction to the Political Modernization initiated by the Secular Humanism of the Renaissance and consolidated with the Age of Enlightenment, which is what all these "classical reactionary" groups have in common, which have brotherly relations with the Carlist and Integrist groups, which are the ones that most allege the concept (despite that even italian, french and polish monarchical groups uses the concept and I referenced some of those). There is even an entire philosophical school that defends this specific form of "pre-modern Monarchy" according to the characteristics of a perennial tradition (Perennialist School, although they are obviously not the only defenders of this type of government and in any case they have an emphasis on questions of mysticism and metaphysics rather than politics)

Finally, it can be empirically verified, after reviewing the sources of the article (specifically looking for the statutes and declaration of principles of the monarchical groups mentioned), that all these groups that perceive themselves as "authentic reactionaries" come to defend a form of government that is essentially common, despite the specific name they give it. There is even a book called "The Legitimist Counterrevolution (Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão and Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza and Gómez de Valugera)" that talks about the common aspects between these monarchist groups [Spanish Carlism, Portuguese Miguelism, French Legitimist Royalism, British Jacobitism, Italian Neo-Bourbonism, Catholic Integralism] along with the common monarchical form of government that they propose according to common principles, even having the collaboration of several intellectual authorities of all the movements mentioned. From this we can conclude that all these legitimist groups, which have historically collaborated with each other (like the White Russian movement associating with the Carlists in anti-communist alliances during the interwar period, the Polish monarchists of the magazine Rojalisci-pro Patria having integrists in their ranks and basing themselves on Carlism, the intellectual collaborations between the legitimists of the houses of Bourbon and Habsburg-Lorraine, etc.) consider themselves to defend what the Iberian traditionalists understand as "Traditional Monarchy" and which perhaps other traditionalisms or "classical conservatives" names in a different way. Which, again, would be a more nominal and terminological question (which could be resolved by renaming the article, although I personally would not suggest it), not a proof of the insubstantiality or inaccuracy of the article. Sr L (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While renaming the article would solve some issues, I believe that it does not fix the notability of this concept. When searching on both Google and Google Scholar, the terms Integral Monarchy, Corporate Monarchy, Traditional Monarchy, Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism and Classical Monarchy are either scarcely used or scarcely used in the way this article uses the term. These ideologies may all have common beliefs and roots, but without a widely recognized term grouping these ideologies together this bars on being original research.

My main concern is not that the groups categorized under Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism, or any synonymous terms, are not related but that the notion of categorizing them this way is not notable enough to be its own article. Clubspike2 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is mostly a problem of Anglo-Saxon academical community that just don't have the same interest on this topyc unlike Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian or Polish academical communities (in which for me have been more easy to get sources on this topyc, even someones that consideres British Jacobitism as part of the movements that supports this model of government). Since the essence of this questions are about the method of making connections to categorize this in what is understanded as "Traditional Monarchy", I think that the problem is the necessity of wanting pure academic papers that say something about traditional morality or leaders specifically saying so outside of Carlism and Integralism, which yes they are (like Jacek Bartycel on Poland or Marquis de la Tour du Pin in France, along the influence of Francisco Elias de Tejada on Italian monarchical organisations like Editoriale Il Giglio), but in Anglo-Saxon community are very few outside of marginal circles like Jacobitean or Traditionalist Catholicism. But being demostrated that there are shared principles and fundaments that determinates their common model of Monarchy, I think that staying in something terminological would ignore the essential, perhaps it is because it has been see all these movements in the same way anyone would see an ideology, instead of seeing them as a particular Social Doctrine of Monarchy. The problem would be the necesity to see a system and a creator who gives it a name and people influenced by that creator citing his work, instead of seeing it as a series of principles shared by classical reactionaries' conception of Monarchy as based on a Perennial Tradition outside of ideological formulas (that's why the article should mantain it's name in my opinion, due to being reivindicated mostly by Traditionalist circles that tries to distinguish themself of other Monarchisms). Although, if I would consider a referent that inspire the rest, it should be Thomas Aquinas Iusnaturalism, as all of those movements that defends this "Traditional Monarchy" are inspired (if not totally based) by his proposal of Monarchy in De regno, ad regem Cypri, all of the academical authors that mentions this model of government are Thomists or are sympathisers to his political contributions (like Perennialists). Sr L (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this by seeing this edit, which is adding a bunch of text referenced to a glaringly unreliable source, some NGO that promotes some oddball fringe views. If this is the standard for the rest of the text, then yes, it should absolutely be deleted because this is a policy violation. --Joy (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that the policy violation is about Wikipedia:Fringe theories. While it is true that the defense of the Traditional Monarchy is currently a marginal position, this is not sufficient reason to delete the article, since the reasons why Wikipedia avoids giving articles to marginal things is if the object of the marginal is due to having little academic support or no historical impact, but the defense of the "Traditional Monarchy" model (understood as a corporate, traditionalist, decentralized, religious and anti-modernist form of government) has been a very relevant real historical phenomenon, which in some countries such as Spain, Portugal, France and Italy are a relevant case study on the historiography of revolution and counterrevolution.

And specifically the Traditional Monarchy model, has support from serious and recognized academic authors cited in the article, such as Juan Vazquez de Mella, António Sardinha, Francisco Elias de Tejada (influential in Italy), Miguel Ayuso Torres, Rafael Gambra Ciudad, Jacek Bartycel (Polish), the Marquis de la Tour du Pin (French), etc. which haved a common understandment of a Christian or Perennial Social Order based in this type of Monarchy that isn't Constitutional nor Absolutist, trying to be an alternative superation of Feudalism.

It cannot be placed in that category as could be the case, for example, of anarcho-national bolshevism (a political ideology that exists but with no systematization and no serious references in the academic world). By this logic there shouldn't be articles talking about anarcho-capitalism (and it's derivations) or fascism (and their movements), which are currently marginal positions. Sr L (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the idea is not that we don't cover complex topics at all, the idea is that we observe the WP:Verifiability policy while doing so. Blogs are not reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that aren't just blogs, books that can be searched on Google Academy (although are more easy to get them on spanish, portuguese, french, italian or polish than in english). And the use of blogs related to official institutions can be tolerated by WP:Verifiability policy if "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals", and those blogs are administrated by carlists academics that can be verificated in the official page of Traditionalist Communion (2001). However, even in case those blogs are rejected, that doesn't meant that the article in his totallity isn't a valid one, due to having a serious academical fundament from Classic Reactionary thinkers and movements (which have a serious historical impact in some countries, like Spain or Portugal). Sr L (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like most such hobby horses, it's a curious and overwhelmingly excessive mix of original research and synthesis. I'm not going through this entire thing, and one thing must suffice, for now: this source, a page on WordPress that claims to cover the genesis of the "modern state" in a couple paragraphs, and it is used to verify (pardon me for the long quotes):
The first attempts to develop organized traditionalist monarchists movements appeared in Spain and Portugal during the context of Carlist Wars and Liberal Wars, in which Carlists and Miguelists launched proclaims (like Manifiest of the Persians) that later defined a series of political doctrines to reject the paradigms of liberal revolutions (as Liberalism was perceived as a political philosophy contrary to a Christian social order), but also trying to reject the monarchical absolutism that caused the perceived social decline of Christendom by having harmed the "Intermediate Bodies" (popular institutions of the plebeians, like Municipalities, Guilds, Corporations, Parliaments, etc. that were guarantors of Class collaboration), local Customary Law (guarantors of Regional Autonomies and Subsidiarity) and the social role of the clergy (the autonomy of the church from the state, guarantors of Natural law) in the name of erroneous ideological assumptions of Modern Philosophy (like Anthropocentrism, Nominalist anti-Metaphysical Realism, Immanentism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Secular humanism, Regalism, Enlightened absolutism, etc.) to achieve apparently more "efficiency" and "rationality" in governments that instead led to the Ancien régime crisis
and
Then it would be stablished the absolutist model of monarchy during the Protestant reformation and normalized in Europe by the Westphalian system, in which there would be attacks against the political power of the Social Corporations (that were mostly in good convivence until the European wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics, along the wars of French system of Alliances based on Raison d' etat instead of Universitas Christiana) in the name of Political stability. And finally it would be a popular political system among Western intellectuals (specially followers of Modern philosophy) during XVI to XVIII century, like Niccolò Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius or Thomas Hobbes.
Note how careless the editing and how argumentative the writing is in those paragraphs, sweeping through history with the broadest possible brush. This is how we get 300k of excessive (and excessively overlinked, another hallmark of such writing) and overformatted (another hallmark) writing. No, burn it. This is an essay. It is possible that somewhere in here is a concept worth noting, but even the lead doesn't make that clear. Delete. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I was considering, after looking at the history, to advocate a return to this version, but that is also problematic, because both versions take this concept to be something specific to the Iberian situation, and a quick search through JSTOR shows that this is unwarranted: the term "traditional monarchy" is simply a word to denote traditional monarchy, nor does anything in the definition by António Sardinha cited in the earlier version point at something specific, except maybe for the word "Catholic". Drmies (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  About António Sardinha, here's a portuguese source about his definition of "Traditional Monarchy" (specially from page 6) and mentioning analogies with the political theories of Joseph de Maistre, René de La Tour du Pin and Russian Whites https://www5.pucsp.br/cedic/semui/colecoes/colecao-acao-imperial-patrionovista/aipb-02/AIPB0017-compactado_2.pdf
  
  Another one from University of Wrocław that it's in English and mentions this "Organic, Traditional Monarchy" on Portuguese Academic community from Right-wing circles.
  
  https://repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl/dlibra/publication/146401/edition/136530/catholic-and-monarchist-nationalism-in-twentieth-century-portugal-bartyzel-jacek-orcid-0000-0003-1193-8515
  
  This one in Spanish also mentions a comparative annalysis with his "Traditional Monarchy" and what carlist believes it's Traditional Monarchy (and also mentioning a more specific concept of "Traditionalist Monarchy", although with reserves of use due to wanting avoid ideologism)
  
  https://fundacioneliasdetejada.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/FYR23-P-57-67.pdf
  
  The 3 have in common that, while Traditional Monarchy as a model has been better developed by Iberian theorists of Counter-revolution traditionalism (and Sardinha being one if it's greatest a referent, along Juan Vazquez de Mella on Spian), it isn't exclusive of Iberian traditionalism, as there has been an accademic exchange with Legitimists and Maurrassisme of French reactionary community (and also of like most of royalist movements), that also have contributions to the concept and also used it in their context to support the restoration of a "True Repressantitve" Monarchy based in Estates of the realm Corporative representation instead of modern Parliamentarism (and rejecting also Absolutist centralisation at late Ancien régime). And then can be infered that this concept exists by it's own property, although can be mantained by renaming the article as just "Monarquia Tradicional", mantaining Spanish/Portuguese original name, in case Anglo-Saxon Community has terminological problems about this model of monarchical government. Sr L (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I, and it seems a few other Wikipedians, find the issue with "traditional monarchy" isn't validity but instead whether notable sources use the term in the same way this article does. The category might be a valid and sound idea but Wikipedia is about notable ideas not valid ones. Without a reliable source telling us what traditional monarchy is and then identifying other ideologies, individuals or movements as "traditional monarchist", this article is clearly representing a fringe theory.
  
  The sources provided in the article and this article fail to fulfill this requirement. António Sardinha's work mentions traditional monarchy scarcely, and does spend anytime defining the term. The Wroclaw text uses it to describe a movements characteristics, instead of as a categorical label. Miguel Ayuso only uses the term when describing the formula for Vázquez de Mella's idea of a monarchy, instead of as a category or movement. Similar to what @Asqueladd said, a lot of synthesis is required to find any sort of continuity among these sources. They may talk about similar ideas and even use similar words, but they should tell us that they are connected. It is not Wikipedia's job to connect these dots, the sources should do that for us. If traditional monarchy was a notable idea, it should be easy to find sources that discuss its use clearly and various definitions. These sources do not. Clubspike2 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, there's a book called "The Legitimist Counterrevolution (Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão and Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza and Gómez de Valugera)" that talks about the common aspects between these monarchist groups [Spanish Carlism, Portuguese Miguelism, French Legitimist Royalism, British Jacobitism, Italian Neo-Bourbonism, Catholic Integralism] with the common monarchical form of government that they propose according to common principles, even having the collaboration of several intellectual authorities of all the movements mentioned. It's the most near to fullfy that requeriment, although the focus of this book is mostly about history of these groups (and the common fights they have had against Political modernization) rather than a book of political philosophy or political sciences, but still offers insights into their common ideological foundations and political activities. However those five groups have always perceived themselves as defenders of a common type of monarchy, and even the current traditionalist communion of the Carlist pretender Don Sixto de Borbon has branches in Italy and Portugal-Brazil, as well as the legitimist groups related to Louis XX of France and Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria have a history of using that same term "monarchie traditionnelle" or "monarchia tradizionale" .
  
  There are books like the french one Henry V (duc de Bordeaux, comte de Chambord) ou la monarchie traditionnelle française à l'épreuve de la modernité post-révolutionnaire (1820-1872) or the italian one La legittimità di esercizio, fondamento dello Stato tradizionale which talks about this common aspects of a Traditional Monarchy that rejects the Modernization theory and emphasizes governance rooted in historical legitimacy, religious orthodoxy, and regional autonomy through a King commited to protect traditional social hierarchies, opposed to centralized state power in favour of a corporative representation against both absolutism and parlamentarism, and the preservation of regional laws and local customs of the peoples. If the problem is mostly about cathegorizing as supporters of "Tradiitional Monarchy" some Non-Catholic Monarchist or Reactionary monarchist movements not influenced directly by Iberian traditionalism (unlike the French, Italian and Polish ones), then that's why I propposed to that specific part of the article to be translated into a new page when is solved first the one of definition and fundaments (which in my opinion has been already resolved when I added a new paragraph and subtitle about Definition and Fundaments according to their academical referents, although I can accept corrections), so being borrowed that specific parts of supporters if the problem is there, not deleting all page which refers to a substantial and existent model of government with valid reason to be here due to it's historical impact. Sr L (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About this source (page on WordPress), it's from an official Carlist institution, the Circulo Hispalense (now Circulo Elias de Tejada), which is an extension of actual Traditionalist Communion (2001) and can be verified in their official page: https://carlismo.es/presentacion-en-sevilla-del-circulo-hispalense-de-la-comunion-tradicionalista/. So, it can be considered a reliable source as it's related to an academical institution which officially defends this model of "Traditional Monarchy", and being the article about explaining that model. The same institution has made collaboration with other "Anti-Liberal" Monarchist movements, and that's a big consideration about why this "Traditional Monarchy" is the same Monarchical model of government defended by reactionary movements with similar "Counter-Revolution" political philosophy (like jacobites, french legitimists, miguelists, habsburg loyalists, white tsarists, etc) against Constitutional Monarchy and Absolute Monarchy at the same time.

While my intention wasn't arguing, just expressing the official fundaments of the "Traditional Monarchy", I'm not against to eliminate those paragraphs if they're syntethised in a more accurate way for Wikipedia standard. Although, about that conclussions about Westphalian system as catalyst of Absolutist Monarchies, those aren't exclussive of Traditionalist Monarchists thinkers but are a greater historiographical debate among Academy and have been supported by non-related authors like André de Muralt (but due to not being this article just about historical science, but mainly political science, I avoided to mention the other perspectives and mantaining the focus on the fundaments of Traditional Monarchy, so just mentioning the historiographical perspective that it's assumed by these academics about why Traditional Monarchy is different of Absolutist Monarchy or Modern Sovereign state). So, again, you can change the redaction if that's the problem (or at least giving an advice cartel to correct it in the near future), not borrowing all the page.

Also I was considering, about resolving the issue concerning the excessive amount of sources, to create another article about "Movements that defends Traditional Monarchy per country", as most of those sources are related to the part of "Supporters of Traditional Monarchy". Sr L (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay full of original research, underpinned by shoddy sources and heavy synthesis conveying a set of fringe views also relying on extrapolating from Spanish traditionalist voices to elsewhere on feeble grounds. Whatever has been going on in the monarchist camps in terms of innovations of their political philosophy in recent times, it should be dealt with in monarchism, paying attention to due attribution and weight, instead of this essay that looks as if someone wanted to sell tradcaths an ethereal mode of state structure.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"full of original research" the sources are there about the principles of Traditional Monarchy according to serious authors in academy from Carlist, Miguelists, French Legitimists, Catholic Integralist (Thomist), etc of reactionary circles, which during XIX and Early XX Century were very relevant historically (like the Spanish Civil Wars). So their actual condition of being marginal views can't be a justification of being a case of a fringe theory. Sr L (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that such a distinction given to a "traditional monarchy" is valid, although the article has several editorial errors and things that should be improved to avoid more confusion, but it should be understood that the traditional monarchy does not refer to a system or schematization of a type of government, if it is not a term that seeks to encompass monarchies that were governed by certain principles shared by the medieval era, as mentioned above, based on the political form of Thomism and political Augustinianism, all those monarchies that in their proper context sought more or less to replicate or be governed by such principles fall into the term of traditional monarchy, if one seeks information on such movements cited in the article it is normal that not define themselves as a traditional monarchy, but they do identify with the principles presented, so it seems useful to me to have an article that encompasses such monarchies that Until the modern age they sought to materialize such principles. Moongrief (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear a few more assessments of this article. I typically ask for a source analysis at this point but with 284 footnotes, that's not a realistic ask. I will say, User:Sr L, you have made your opinion known (though without stating a bolded vote) so please do not continue to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion and respond to every comment that is made. That approach almost always backfires. And if there is a sensible ATD, like a Merge, Redirect or Rename solution, please bring that up soon. This discussion can be closed at any point that a closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — weak — I don't deny that this article has issues with prose. Broadly, it simply reads like an essay and — despite it seemingly being well-sourced — I am sure I am seeing some WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That said, I feel it is important to note that this is a term that is again — seemingly — utilized primarily in Spain and Portugal, or at least in the Hispanophone world. So, right there, is a possible issue; It doesn't fully-clarify this in the lead. Secondly, definitely some WP:SIZE and definitely some WP:CANYOUREADTHIS issues. Additionally, I'm not sure the title is correct, despite it being a literal translation from Spanish: monarquía tradicional or Portuguese: monarquia tradicional. A more appropriate semantic translation might possibly be "traditionalist monarchism" or even "conservative monarchism," though I'm getting a bit WP:OR-ish with the latter. Anyways, before I get myself into CANYOUREADTHIS-territory, I'd just like to say I believe this article can be salvaged. I am also willing to work on it myself. That said, Clubspike2, if nothing changes in the coming months, I would give you strong support for a deletion.MWFwiki (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:

[1] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
[2] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
[3] is not independent
[4] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
[5] is a copy of a press release
[6] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
[7] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
[8] copy of a press release
[9] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
[10] Summary of a press release
[11] Summary of a press release
[12] Summary of a press release
[13] No mention of Aeye

None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilby,

First of all, thank you for your detailed response, and of course, I completely understand that during these festive days it’s challenging to manage everything! While I understand that some sources are merely press releases and thus not usable, I have a few reservations about some of your comments.

https://fortune.com/well/2024/03/22/ai-eye-exams-diabetic-retinopathy/ I don’t quite understand the issue with this one. Even the link itself contains the company’s name, which is one of the main subjects of the article.
https://www.calcalist.co.il/calcalistech/article/bk8iuea3q I understand the objection, but since this is also an interview, I think it’s normal that the tone regarding the company might not be particularly “objective.” However, it’s still an article published on an independent platform.
https://bjo.bmj.com/content/108/5/742 This is a scientific study published in a specialized journal, complete with references. In this case, can’t it still be considered reliable or at least useful for the company’s recognition?
https://nocamels.com/2024/07/ai-makes-vital-diabetic-eye-test-as-simple-as-saying-cheese/ This is a public interview about the company’s activities. I don’t understand what the issue is with this source.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-biolight-invests-in-1m-in-aeye-health-1001364773 It also includes general information about the company, in addition to discussing a specific piece of news.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/aeye-health-gets-fda-approval-screen-diabetics-prevent-blindness-2022-11-15/ I understand the concern, but I believe Reuters doesn’t publish articles or press releases that lack validity. If helpful, I also found this additional article: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/optomed-oyj-aeye-health-say-portable-device-detect-eye-issues-gets-fda-nod-2024-05-01/

Finally, if it might be useful, I’d like to highlight this other source:

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/aeye-health-receives-fda-510k-ai-backed-diabetic-retinopathy-screening

https://time.com/collection/time100-ai-2024/

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ Dirindalex1988 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain:

Fortune.com: the coverage of Aeye health consists of passing mentiosn "... and Israeli software company AEYE Health" and "AEYE Health said its eye exam is used by “low hundreds” of U.S. providers". As far as I can tell, that is the extent of the specific coverage in the article.
calcalist.co.il: is an interview. It is something, but an interview isn't really independent coverage.
bjo.bmj.com: at first it looked great. Then I realised that every author of the study is an employee, board member or the CEO of the company. So I can't see it as independent.
globes.co.il: is a standard statement of an investment, which reads exactly like a presss release.
Reuters.com: is a clear summary of a press release.

I think that nocamels.com is the best, but mostly it is the CEO talking up his company. That's not a lot to go on. The requirment is for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Run-of-the-mill coverage of press releases, papers written by the company, or sources that make only a passing reference do not tend to meet this criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everything is much clearer now. In the meantime, I’d like to point out these two additional sources from Google Books and Scholar:

https://bostoneyeblink.com/category/uncategorized/

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Startup_Protocol/PkLyEAAAQBAJ?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=%22AEYE+Health%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2795094

Do you think they could be usable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be independent of the subject. Sources written predominently by people working with or for Aeye Health are unlikely to pass that bar. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always! I’m attaching additional sources I’ve found; they should be independent:

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ The CEO is mentioned in the TIME100AI list due to the work of the company, the entire peice is about the company and the technology, not about his personal life.

https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/h11qwtyma

https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001490971

https://www.umassmed.edu/arc-pbrn/current-projects/project-4-page-generic/airs-pc/

Regarding bjo.bmj.com, the British Journal of Ophthalmology is a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, which has accepted the article for publication, including research published by the company that bolsters its credibility and reinforces the validity of its claims.

P.s I know I’m making a lot of requests and don’t want to overwhelm you. Is there a way to seek help from other experienced editors or admins as well? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ article is written entirely by staff and board members from Aeye health. It may be published in a journal, but it is not independent. UMass has partnered with Aeye Health to produce their report. It is thus not independent. The globes.co.il article is an interview with the CEO. It is therefore not independent. The ynetnews article is simply quotes from press releases by Aeye Health. It is also not independent. The Time article is the only one of note. If someone feels that five paragraphs published about the founder is suffficently in-depth to warrant an article, I will be surprised, but it is a start.

You could try asking in WP:Teahouse for assistance. I would also recommend reading the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which does a good job of explaining the situation. Otherwise, hopefully more people will choose to be involved in this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Time 100 article was sourced from a PRnewsire press release and an interview with the CEO of AEYE. The writer was paid with a $50,000 grant (Tarbell Fellowship) from A.I. organization donors who say they exercise no editorial control, but aim to increase journalistic coverage of companies working in A.I. For me, it's hard to see this article as separate from promotion by AEYE. Even if Time claims writer's independence from the donors, the link to PRnewswire is in the middle of the article. If this was notable, there should be another source of information besides a press release. Just Al (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the analysis of nom's reference not qualifying GNG/ORG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amanpulo

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

The resort which covers Pamalican island fails WP:GNG. Only sources are from travel guides. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Geography, and Islands. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pamalican. I don't think it makes sense to have two separate articles about the resort and the island when they both occupy the same area. —seav (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pamalican per the same reason as Seav's. Though it got me thinking, are both subjects (the resort and the island) notable enough to have an article? AstrooKai (Talk) 08:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The island itself meets WP:GEONATURAL. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge parts worth merging, overlapping subjects with a stub each. CMD (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pamalican per above. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep The article has issues but the resort in its own right is notable. Among others, it won an award seven times in a row, is covered in trade publications (also this one), has been written about in lifestyle magazines (also this one), and was even listed in the Michelin Guide. Now I think we need to clearly delineate the two as the island itself is also notable, but let's not jump the gun here and presume the resort itself isn't notable when it is. The better question to ask is whether there should be one article or two. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be one article, the topics hugely overlap and have just a few paragraphs each. CMD (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not try and treat the articles as static, please. Granted they haven't been edited since this AfD started, but it's not like the articles can be expanded so as to justify the existence of two articles, no? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 20:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I said treats them as static. Anyone could expand any article at any time, and split a developed subarticle at any time. CMD (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that in this case where there are two articles, if the intention is to develop separate articles when there are enough sources, why merge them in the first place? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a large number of sources that discuss Amanpulo the resort. There is enough information for a standalone article about Amanpulo's history, accommodations, amenities, and activities. Amanpulo began its history in 1993.
The island of Pamalican has a long history before that. Its early history: "The island was discovered by accident twice – initially by the seafaring villagers of the neighbouring Manamoc Island, who used it in the 18th century as a market garden to grow coconuts and corn, returning year after year to tend their crops and collect turtle eggs. They named it Pamalican, meaning to return, or go back." It "was once an important stop on the spice trade route between China and Borneo, but later doomed to centuries of obscurity". It was a family-run coconut plantation until the early 1990s. There is likely enough information for two standalone articles. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Sky Harbor. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. The fact that the resort is coterminous with the island is my concern. So it can be discussed in either of their talk pages. SBKSPP (talk)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Robles, Marissa (2008-11-29). "'Amanpulo had a spotlight over it!'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva AIWPHI0020081129e4bt00063.
  The article notes: "Before you start believing that the world spins in a hopeless whirl, think of Amanpulo. It is surely one adventure on your ‘101 Things to Do Before You Whine.' Experiencing this marvel of an island on the Sulu Sea, in the island group of Cuyo in Palawan, leaves one in a state of curious wonder, with nary a care for worrisome political and economic issues and petty personal upheavals. ... Consistent with all the Aman resorts worldwide, Amanpulo in Palawan embraces the cultural and natural landscapes it is set in. In the interiors, one notes the materials of clay, wood and bamboo. On the beach, the barbecue lighting uses baskets. The staff's uniform speaks of adapting to the culture, too. The marine sanctuary is pristine and free from garbage. The quality of the sand is consistent throughout the island of Pamalican, Amanpulo's home. Environment ranks high in Amanpulo's priorities. The vermi culture project, which recycles organic material into fertilizer, aims to give more jobs to residents of neighboring islands who produce fresh organic vegetables for guests. There's also the partnership with the Soriano Foundation in outreach programs on nearby Manamoc Island, where most of Amanpulo's workforce lives."
2. Lugo, Leotes Marie T. (2003-08-15). "Weekender - Travel & Tourism Ahhh... manpulo (a.k.a. lifestyle of the rich and famous)". BusinessWorld. Factiva BSWRLD0020030815dz8f0003h.
  The article notes: "I was dreaming and I didn't want to wake up! I was in Amanpulo - that super expensive high-end resort somewhere in Palawan that has hosted Hollywood stars, super models and the likes of the late John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Daryl Hannah, Robert de Niro and, if rumors were to be believed, Michael Jackson. It's a place I've only heard of when talking about the lifestyles of the rich and famous, which definitely is way out of my league, and actually stepping into the island seemed surreal. ... We made a brief stop in the clubhouse restaurant and bar, perhaps the heart of the resort. The clubhouse had an Oriental motif adorned by coconut shell tables, rattan chairs from Cebu and oriental wooden ornaments. It also houses the resort boutique and library, where guests can borrow books, magazines and even digital video discs. ... Amanpulo, consistent with its image as a private, secluded resort, only has 40 casitas in hillside and beach-side settings. Each casita can accommodate a maximum of three adults and two children below 12 years old. ... Most of the resort's guests are Europeans, Japanese and Hong Kong expatriates."
3. Matheson, Veronica (2005-06-12). "Luxuriate in Filipino island life". Sunday Herald Sun. p. 1. Factiva SUHERS0020050611e16c00084.
  The article notes: "Their sea "christening" is at Amanpulo (peaceful island), 300km south of the Philippines' capital, Manila, where guests -- no question you need to be wealthy to stay here -- have time for caring and sharing. ... The island is car-free, but each casita (bungalow) has a gas-powered golf cart for guests to move around the island. And while it is possible to circle the island by cart, most guests opt to explore via the beach, barefoot in the sand. ... Amanpulo, recently named the world's top luxury resort by a British travel guide, is one of the prized jewels in the Aman crown. ... Once a family-run coconut plantation, Pamalican Island was reborn as Amanpulo resort in 1994. The 40 casitas, in hillside and beachside settings, are modelled loosely on the Philippine bahay kubo (village home). Inside the casitas every attention is given to detail, from pebble-washed walls to coconut shell tables, rustic palm baskets, king-size beds and roomy marble bathrooms. Outdoor decks have cushioned sun lounges and hammocks swing from palm trees. ... And because of its remoteness, Amanpulo generates its own power, treats its own sewage, recycles scrap metal, creates compost for reforestation, has a desalination plant and an airfield."
4. Chua-Go, Ingrid (2010-04-04). "Amanpulo-heaven on earth". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva AIWPHI0020100405e64400005.
  The article notes: "If this is the first time you've heard of Amanpulo (which I highly doubt), let me tell you that this world-class resort nestled in the secluded and private Pamalican Island, Palawan, is one of the tropical havens favored by Hollywood royalty.But don't expect to be bumping into them, though, as the very reason for their visiting the resort is Amanpulo's über-discreet policy toward its guests. Even at full occupancy, you will hardly bump into anyone. ... What I truly enjoyed about Amanpulo's dining experience is that you will often bump into the island's F&B director Harish Nair, who never fails to greet each diner to ask about the food. And for dinner, there's Lagoon Club located on the other side of the island, which serves Vietnamese food, and again Beach Club, which serves Spanish food. I highly recommend the paella and the fideua. If you want, you can also ask the island's restaurant to prepare you a beachside dinner complete with bonfire! ... You can also explore the island, which is what we decided to do the next day, after another snorkeling trip. A brief but leisurely 10-minute walk on the beach from my casita led me to the island's tip, where a sandbar stretched out into the crystal-clear waters. This sandbar would have been the most ideal place to get a nice tan and a refreshing swim during the earlier hours of the day."
5. Kurosawa, Susan (2010-08-06). "Amanpulo". Wish. The Australian. Factiva NLWISH0020100805e6860000k.
  The article notes: "This is Amanpulo, an exclusive resort on Pamalican Island in the southwest of The Philippines, part of the Cuyo group. Opened by Singapore-based Amanresorts group in 1993, everything here is about the water; the nearest snorkelling spot is so close that it's simply dubbed House Reef, there are picnic sites from which you can don snorkel gear and stride off into gardens of clams. At the southern tip there's a channel of water known as Shark's Playground but, as guests are calmly reassured, these are happy little reef sharks. Still, you might prefer to observe their sinister shapes from one of Amanpulo's boats, zooming over schools of batfish in protected waters. Complimentary aquatic activities include sailing, kayaking and windsurfing; on the easy-catch menu are snapper, grouper, wahoo, mackerel, sweetlip, bonito and (for near-instant sashimi) tuna. ... Everyone's talking about The go-ahead philosophy of Amanresorts. After a lull early last decade, the group is steaming ahead with openings, particularly in China and India. Amanpulo is not the most glamorous of the range but it's arguably one of the friendliest and most fun. The Filipino staff bring an air of fiesta to proceedings. But it all runs like clockwork, too - leave your golf buggy casually parked and when you return it will be precisely positioned, with replenished bottled water."
6. Hwang, You-mee (2004-07-09). "Do everything, or nothing at all: Island resort on Sulu Sea offers the ultimate in luxury". The Korea Herald. Factiva KORHER0020040709e0790000s.
  The article notes: "Welcome to Amanpulo, an exclusive resort that occupies the entire island. Once a family-run coconut plantation, the site was transformed into its present form in December 1993 by Amanresort, which operates similar resorts around the world. An assistant offers a cold towel so you can freshen up, and after a brief tour of the island in an open-sided golf cart you are shown to your "casita," or small house. The buggy is your means of transportation throughout your stay at the resort. You're given a turtle-shaped key holder that comes with a key to your house and another for the buggy, as well as a map of the island. There are 40 individual guest houses dotted throughout the island: 29 on the beach, seven on the hillside and four in treetops. Treetop and hillside accommodations give you a spectacular view of the island and the surrounding Sulu Sea, especially the two deluxe hillside cabins. ... Amanpulo also has more than a handful of great scuba diving spots for both novice and experienced divers. Equipment and lessons from skilled instructors are offered at the Dive Shop. Children ages 8 and up can also learn scuba diving in the pool. You can also walk around the island's perimeter, which takes about 90 minutes."
7. "King of your island". Mint. 2011-03-25. Factiva HNMINT0020110326e73p0002t.
  The article notes: "Home to Amanpulo, the Aman Resorts' lone foray in the Philippines, Pamalican Island is a private island 300km south-west of Manila. The location, in the Sulu Sea, was once an important stop on the spice trade route between China and Borneo, but later doomed to centuries of obscurity. Today, it is one of the most secluded luxury locations in Asia, and provides an otherworldly privacy worth flying halfway across the world for. The only way to get there is the Amanpulo's own turboprop. A hangar at Manila airport hides the Amanpulo's dedicated lounge, and the journey-and the attentive, invisible service one expects of a hotel of this calibre-begins there. Riding in the 19-seat plane across the seas to the Amanpulo's private airstrip, you get the sense upon landing on Pamalican Island that there will be nothing but sun, sea and pina coladas for as long as you're there. Instead of beach huts, your nights are spent in large casitas, modelled after local village homes, either right on the beach or perched among the trees on the hills. Each casitas comes with its own chef and maid to look after your culinary and other daily needs, and with a buggy so that you can explore the island."
8. Noone, Richard (2014-10-12). "Fantasy island a divine reality". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "Operated by luxury group Aman Resorts, Amanpulo is on Pamalican Island, a relative speck in the Cuyo Archipelago of the Philippines. The island was discovered by accident twice – initially by the seafaring villagers of the neighbouring Manamoc Island, who used it in the 18th century as a market garden to grow coconuts and corn, returning year after year to tend their crops and collect turtle eggs. They named it Pamalican, meaning to return, or go back. In 1967, one of the Philippines’ wealthiest families, the Sorianos of San Miguel Brewery fame, discovered it while cruising aboard the motor yacht Seven Seas. ... The family partnered with Aman Resorts and the first villas opened to guests in 1993."
9. Nicholson, Sarah (2011-04-02). "In the Lap of Luxury". The Advertiser. ProQuest 859717468.
  The article notes: "I am staying at the Amanpulo resort on Pamalican, one of the 1768 islands in the undeveloped Palawan Provence, 350km south of Manila. ... Amanpulo, the boutique resort that occupies all of Pamalican Island, is a 60-minute charter flight from Manila, and a haven of tranquillity and barefoot luxury in the waters of the Sulu Sea. Unlike other upmarket resorts, where staff wear stuffy uniforms and are schooled to be invisible, Amanpulo is all casual elegance. The property has some captivating rough edges that make me feel like I have settled in and become part of island life rather than just another guest staying in a posh suite for a few days. ... Pamalican was home to a working coconut plantation as recently as the early 1990s, and 85 per cent of the staff come from the neighbouring island of Manamoc, rather than fancy hospitality schools in Manila."
10. Prieto-Valdes, Tessa (2005-09-18). "Blissful in Amanpulo". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Factiva AIWPHI0020050917e19i0000e.
  The article notes: "Amanpulo guests stay in spacious casitas, complete with a luxurious bath and dressing area. Nestled among tropical foliage, the casitas are patterned after the bahay kubo dwelling and were designed by architect Bobby Manosa. Each casita maintains a modern flair and is remarkably well-kept. Guests are also given a private buggy to explore the island. ... Now that my soon-to-be-wed friend Kris Aquino is a converted beach lover, I will suggest that she honeymoon with her beau James Yap in Amanpulo. The fact is that it is one of the best resorts in the world. While swimming in their pool, Dennis met a Scottish guy who said it was the most beautiful pool he had ever been in, bar none. Thinking that the Scot must have just arrived in Asia, Dennis asked him how he could make such a hyperbolic statement."
11. Radnor, Abigail (2012-12-08). "Six great island getaways for winter: Diego Della Valle has made millions from Tod's loafers. But can he cobble together the crumbling Coliseum?". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "Set the scene inspired by native Filipino dwellings, it is all timber frames and rattan roofs, making it the epitome of fuss-free chic. So this one's a little rustic? Not quite. On swimming out to the floating raft bar you'll be greeted with divans, towels and calamansi juice. And the rooms? Not "rooms", casitas: small houses. Choose between a beach casita within stumbling distance of warm, lapping waves or a treetop casita with views of a tropical landscape."
12. Hryciw, Matt (2019-11-15). "The ultimate luxury retreat in the Philippines: A Philippine private-island paradise, Amanpulo is the ultimate tranquil treat, says Matt Hryciw". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "This is where the use of superlatives to describe Amanpulo’s biggest asset seems unavoidable: if you’re a sun-worshipper or simply love floating in a crystal clear, shallow sea above schools of colourful fish all by yourself, this is unparalleled heaven. Guests at Amanpulo can choose from two types of accommodation. First there are the 42 private, stand-alone rooms like mine called ‘casitas’, which are either cleverly tucked behind the coconut palms along the beach or nestled into the island’s lush interior."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Amanpulo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These very excerpts don't treat the topics as distinct. "Once a family-run coconut plantation, Pamalican Island was reborn as Amanpulo resort in 1994", "Welcome to Amanpulo, an exclusive resort that occupies the entire island. Once a family-run coconut plantation, the site was transformed into its present form in December 1993", "after a brief tour of the island in an open-sided golf cart you are shown to your "casita," or small house", "you get the sense upon landing on Pamalican Island that there will be nothing but sun, sea and pina coladas", "Guests are also given a private buggy to explore the island". The Noone, Richard excerpt is entirely about Pamalican Island, it's not even about the time period of the resort! CMD (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I provided more analysis here that there is enough coverage to have one article about the resort (1993–present) and one article about the island (when it was used as a spice trade route centuries ago, to the 18th century, to the present). There is so much coverage of Amanpulo that if both the resort (Amanpulo) and island (Pamalican) were merged to a single article, Amanpulo could be the right place to have all this information. Cunard (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it doubtful the resort on the island would take WP:NOPAGE title preference over the island itself, especially as the island maintains its current name. CMD (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title and WP:COMMONNAME. It is possible that if there is a single article, the common name would be Amanpulo. Many sources focus on Amanpulo the resort rather than than Pamalican the island. It would require a survey of the literature to determine the right title. Cunard (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misinterpretation of commonname. Overlapping topics will often have different common names. 14:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC) CMD (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the resort covers the entire island, it does seem reasonable, and there seems to be a rough consensus to merge, but I'm not sure I see a consensus as to which title the merged article should be at.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amaire Johnson

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

Another case of a songwriter with prolific credits with notable musicians, but who has received little to no coverage of their own. In this case, there is that Visionary Artist Magazine (source I've never heard of and cannot speak to its reliability) piece, though I can only see the first paragraph of it for some reason. But that alone is not a sufficient amount of coverage, and the rest is just Johnson's name being brought up in the context of credits on other artists' songs without any in-depth discussion of Johnson's contributions. None of this applies to NBAND's standards. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Associated with major acts, but nothing strictly about this individual. The NPR and CBC articles are about different people. I'm not seeing enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the "different people" the NPR and CBC articles discuss are the two acts that employ Amaire Johnson as a music director: rappers Big Sean and Ab-soul. The CBC article confirms that Amaire was signed to Big Sean's label once Big Sean began to separate himself from Kanye West and establish an independent label imprint, and the NPR articles reveal that Amaire was tasked with music direction and/or performance for both rappers on their respective acclaimed Tiny Desk appearances. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the point Oaktree is making is that the subjects of those articles are Big Sean and Ab-Soul, not Amaire Johnson, and that Johnson is only mentioned once by name in the CBC article and only in the credits for the NPR performances. These are passing mentions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources show that the subject is notable. Esti92 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way, especially that contradicts what Oaktree and I wrote above? Note that no additional sources have been added since I initiated this discussion, just Category:Year of birth missing (living people). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Took a little break for Christmas and just found out that you nominated this article for deletion. Added a few additional supporting sources, more categories, and made some needed copyedit "tweaks". I'll keep you posted on future changes. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second ever edit of Esti92. Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow analysis of recent edits
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devstacks

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

Save for this Pitchfork album review I can't find any WP:significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. Certainly none of the three sources currently in the article qualify as such Mach61 00:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts. Mach61 00:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalabh Gupta

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBLP.
Sources provided (in order):

(1): Business Daily: A puff piece on the subject, who seems to be being interviewed for this; not an independent source.
(2): Mifeed: The title says “Blazing Trails In Biotech”, need I say more? Same as above. Published in the same week as the above source and another puff piece on the subject, who seems to be being interviewed for this; not an independent source.
(3): Company website: Primary source, as this is the company's own site. Self-published content.
(4): LA Harbor News: I am unable to visit the site and therefore cannot vet this. My browser tells me this is an unsafe site. Visit at your own direction.
(5): Founders Network: This is another primary source, as it is self-published. Details are taken from an event hosted via EventBrite here.

Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Medicine, Technology, Uttar Pradesh, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Chapman

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

Sources currently cited consist of IMDb and some YouTube channels published by the subject. Searching the name alone turns up unrelated individuals; with some other specifying material added, some promotional material from an agency turns up, but nothing which would indicate notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Internet, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:COI! At best WP:TOOSOON, but clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per nom and above, but also noting the incorrectly disclosed COI. Snowycats (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources provided and fail WP:NACTOR. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson (climber)

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Much of notability stems from that one event about Mt. Rainier height matter and there's not been much coverage beyond the immediate time periods following the matter, failing WP:20YT and since further coverage on this hasn't really developed, it's WP:TOOSOON. For other things, it's not quite at GNG meeting level.

The article was successfully deleted with unanimous consensus only two months ago. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this through the academics and educators deletion sorting list but as an assistant teaching professor at Seattle University [14] with only one well-cited publication [15] he definitely does not pass WP:PROF. Any notability is going to have to rest on his mountaineering and mountain metrology efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given my conflict of interest, I won't weigh in on the matter. I'll instead ping other users who were involved in the AfC process, including @DJ Cane, @Cabrils, and @Theroadislong. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I saw the AfC Draft was accepted into the mainspace, I got a little too excited and treated editing this article like any other article on Wikipedia. With that said, given the COI, I knew not to do any content-related edits unless proposed through the talk page, so I did quick edits that I believed to be permissible per COI uncontroversial edits, including adding categories and a grammatical fix. The impulsive edit was the removal of the multiple issues template which I acknowledge was a controversial/disruptive edit given my COI and inherent bias. I apologize for that edit and will not make the same mistake in the future, in making impulsive/disruptive edits that aren't clearly permitted in the COI uncontroversial edits section. If you need more information about my COI, please see the article talk page. Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. no pass of WP:Prof and nobility from WP:GNG not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]