Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

8 November 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

< November 07	November 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sharon McMahon

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

McMahon is a former high school government teacher. McMahon lacks independent in-depth coverage and fails to satisfy notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:BIO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat93 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firecat93 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 November 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 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Radio, Law, Politics, Internet, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsui Teh-li

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

Recipient of a scouting award. Appears to fail WP:GNG. I was unable to find any other sources in a Google news search. Perhaps there are some Chinese-language sources available. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Scouting, and China. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Stickell

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear a few more opinions on this article. By the way, the nominator didn't sign their statement but it was Toby2023.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New Way Cargo Airlines Ilyushin Il-76 shootdown

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS although notable at first sustained coverage died off quick. There has been no expanded reports on the incident. A crash of a heavy aircraft with fatalities under 10 has no notability in itself.

@ me in the below discussion when you comment so i can get the fastest response or see your comment ASAP. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Sudan. Lolzer3k 03:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Liberty Forum

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. BootsED (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating page for deletion for the following issues per WP:DP.

1. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content

The article contains large amounts of puffery and reads like an advertisement. Majority of the article is a list of speakers at conventions, mentions of their books, and external bare urls to their blogs or other websites.

2. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes

The article does not list sources for claims of speakers at various conferences. Several existing sources are primary sources.

The article makes false and misleading claims, engages in original research with no sources, and presents their subjects in a promotional manner.

Example 1, stating that "James O'Keefe – journalist whose investigations have exposed corruption and malfeasance in major taxpayer-funded institutions, including ACORN, Planned Parenthood and NPR". James O'Keefe is a far-right activist that uses deceptively edited videos to attack mainstream media sources and progressive sources, and whose videos exposing corruption have been verifiably proven false, as in the case with the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.

Example 2, stating "Ben Swann – Emmy Award-winning journalist" but not including any mention that he is a well-known, notable conspiracy theorist.

Example 3: stating "Stefan Molyneux – host of Freedomain Radio" but not mentioning how he is best known as a white nationalist.

3. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

I cannot find reliable, non-primary sources for the large majority of the claimed speakers at these conventions.

4. Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

Majority of the individuals listed fail notability requirements. BootsED (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in social nudity

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

This article hardly addresses issues, and is apparent from the get go with the introductory paragraph rehashing info that can be found in many other articles on nudism such as Nudity, Naturism, and Nude recreation, etc.. The article on Nudity especially has multiple sections dedicated to issues, in regards to its legality, cultural acceptance, and child development. The terminology section is totally unnecessary for an article about the issues related to a concept as it does not address any terms related to issues, only the history of naturist related terms themselves. Diversity in nudist clubs is not relevant to its issues unless those issues are stated, discussed, and sourced, which they are not, and would be more appropriate on articles covering specific cultural attitudes towards nudity as shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity#Cultural_differences. The other issues and legality sections are short and can be moved elsewhere, other articles about nudity and naturism have subsections covering particular countries where these tidbits may be more relevant. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Micahtchi (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genital jewellery

AfDs for this article:

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

This article already exists, with more elaboration, sources, and history, under Genital piercing. Non-piercing items (such as clamps and cockrings) are tools moreso than jewellery, and are not covered here in any detail. Types of items used in piercing, such as barbells and rings, are found under Body piercing jewellery and covered somewhat in Body piercing. These items are also not specific to genital piercing. Buttplugs have their own article (and are a toy moreso than an item of jewellery) and nipples are not genitals (and have their own article, under Nipple piercing). This article, at most, works as a wiktionary entry, or as a subheading under the genital piercing article if anything exists that fits better under the jewellery label than the sex toy or tool label without being a piercing (which, as it stands, does not). Its pageviews are significantly lower than Genital piercing, and the title would work better as a redirect if it were kept. Micahtchi (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Sexuality and gender. Micahtchi (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Genital piercing: Info in article can be integrated in Genital piercing if not already included Demt1298 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC-Cymru

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

Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverate. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC Northern Ireland

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

I could not find significant coverage when searching under short name or full name. The 2nd source is a 1 line mention in a book.

~~Also nominating CEWC-Cymru for similar reasons.~~ Both articles fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Northern Ireland, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are two different nominations here. And my own recommendations are slightly different for both. Neither especially cut/dried. In terms of the:

CEWC-Cymru title, I think this should just be merged and redirected. To Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As, per the text and (granted primary) reference, the former charity now forms part of that organisation. And hence is a reasonable WP:ATD-R.
CEWC Northern Ireland title, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this should also be merged and redirected. To Council for Education in World Citizenship. Also as WP:ATD-R. Where the target would be updated so it is no longer a DAB page. But an article covering the "parent" org. I propose this because while, per nom, I do not see that the "CEWC Northern Ireland" org has/had independent notability, the "parent" org perhaps does. Much of the content at the Northern Ireland article could be merged to Council for Education in World Citizenship. With that title (no longer DAB) expanded to cover the concept as a whole. That org being the subject of significant coverage (as the primary topic) in at least one book and several journal articles. Indicating possible notability. There's certainly enough coverage for more than a stub (covering the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland "branches" of the org)...

My 2x cents anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:LibStar, this is not a proper bundled nomination, you might have tagged CEWC-Cymru but this nomination isn't formatted properly. If you wish it to be included, please review WP:AFD instructions for multiple page nominations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate CEWC-Cymru separately now. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez, a new AfD is set up here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEWC-Cymru, you may wish to copy your comment across. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National selections for the Eurovision Song Contest

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

While the national selections for the Eurovision Song Contest of each individual country may be considered notable, e.g. Melodifestivalen in Sweden or Melodi Grand Prix in Norway, and while I do believe there is scope for including information on individual country's selections within their own articles (see San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest#Selection process for a good example of this), I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. I believe that this article contravenes several of Wikipedia's guidelines, including WP:LISTCRIT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY (specifically point 2 on "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"), and in parts I believe this also falls down on WP:GNG as well as WP:OR (given the vast majority of information here is unsourced). I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Lists, and Europe. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and the set seems notable anyway; the informations are not ’loosely" associated. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. W/rt/ your statement that I do not believe that there is justification for hosting a list of every single national selection which may have been held. It is inarguable that the Eurovision selection process has been given substantial attention by RS, and that therefore that this list meets WP:NLIST. Addressing arguments point by point:
1. LISTCRIT: How is this list not specific enough for that to be a problem?
2. NOTDIR: Again, this list is very specific, so no issue with "loosely associated topics"
3. GNG: Relevant criterion is NLIST, which is met as per above (and arguably irrelevant anyhow per Mushy Yank)
4. OR: I fail to see how this list has any problems with that, rather than WP:verifiability, to which I point to WP:NOTCLEANUP
5. I propose deleting the article and merging any useful, sourced parts into Eurovision Song Contest and individual country articles. The high-level main Eurovision contest article would be far too unwieldy with all this information
. Mach61 00:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the table only. While selections are an important part of the Eurovision realm, this table/list format is not appropriate to convey that. The prose describing how entries are selected is all that is needed and in fact should be expanded as how entries were selected tends to be a point of discussion for the contest. I don't understand the point of the table. It is not user friendly, not accessible, and just serves as a dumping ground for unsourced information. Modern contests could have readily accessible refs, but the older ones are not as prevalent or accessible. That on its face is not the biggest issue, but rather every process is different depending on country, so grouping things by labels as just "national final" or "internal selection" is far too vague. Adding additional context would further create readability issues. Some select just a singer internally, some a song internally, some both the singer and the song internally; meanwhile some national finals have an open call for applicants, others have contestants that are internally selected, and yet still others have one singer they've selected singing singer multiple songs for consideration. If I want to see how a country selects their entry, I can navigate to their country's article (i.e. San Marino, Romania, etc.). There are far too many variables to present this information at this manufactured high level. Grk1011 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011 Votes to the effect of "Keep under the condition that..." shouldn't be cast, since discussions about improving the article belong on the article talk page, not here. Mach61 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. If it's on the fence, I think the evidence presented leans more towards delete. There should be a place that discusses how entries are selected, but currently this article is not that in any meaningful way. The contest's website only discusses this with fewer than a dozen sentences, something which as of now could fully be part of the Eurovision Song Contest article without undue weight. Grk1011 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grk1011 I think you misunderstand the page. It is not a regular article about the selection process that happens to contain a large list, it is a list-class page of all the broadcasters each Eurovision participant uses for their national finals, that just so happens to have some explication of the process for context. I agree that the non-list conent could be merged into the main article easily enough, but the list is the entire point of the page. You ought to be voting "Delete" Mach61 19:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I !voted delete overall. The list is the worst part of this article for the reasons I listed above. This type of information is not properly conveyed in list form as it varies so much from country to country. Between the columns being misleading (there are more than just "national final" and "internal selection") and there being no way to compare country vs country via sort or quantity of any well-defined metric, I'm not sure what we're doing here. Grk1011 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lampad

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

There's only one source for these nymphs - a fragment of Alcman that says they are the torch-bearers of Hecate. The details about them being gifts from Zeus or what exactly they do are, as far as I can tell, either made up or a conflation of other details about Hecate. That they are torch-bearers of Hecate is something that can be noted in the relevant column on the nymph page. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not a proposal to delete, but a proposal to merge to nymph. The scholiast on the Iliad, vi. 21, explaining "nymph", says that Alcman listed the Lampades (translated "Lampads" by Campbell) among the nymphs, and goes on to call them "those who carry torches and lights with Hecate" (Loeb Classical Library, Greek Lyric, vol. II, pp. 438, 439, accessible online through the Wikipedia Library). So that part is verified, although the part about being a gift from Zeus is not. Possibly that comes from an oblique reference to the followers of Hecate—it should not be dismissed out of hand, since we know that Zeus showed great favour to Hecate in gratitude for her support. In any case, it's still a matter of merging content into another article, and shouldn't have been brought to AFD. P Aculeius (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is dismissing it out of hand. I generally stay out of wikipedia's oblique bureaucratic processes and rather wish I'd kept to that. I'll just add the detail to the nymph page and not worry about the Lampad page. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you were dismissing it out of hand. I simply meant that the lack of a source at present did not mean that it was unlikely to be true, and thus worth removing without first attempting to find a source, as it might be if it seemed nonsensical. I am not sure what to make of the claim: it could be a genuine report of what an unidentified source says, or an inference perhaps stretched too far by a Wikipedia editor, or a misunderstanding of the source, or just an inexplicable statement. Since the rest of the content is verifiable, this claim seems at least plausible, and I would like to make certain that nobody here can figure out where it came from before excising it. P Aculeius (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the content is currently verifiable only because Michael Aurel and I already removed two other unverifiable claims. Though having said that, the claim that the Avernian nymphs are the same group is actually also unsourced. The source cited for that claim doesn't make it. He simply references Ovid's mention of them in an entry on Avernus (I didn't poke around thoroughly, but I couldn't find a source outside of Ovid for them, either).

The Avernian nymphs just happen to also be 'underworld nymphs'. But being related to Hecate is not the same as being a nymph of the underworld. I nominated it precisely because I had already tried to find a source for the claims and could not. Of course I would be happy if more sources *could* be found, because they sound fascinating, but I'm not holding my breath. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the nymphs mentioned by Ovid; I can't find any reliable source which links them with the Lampades, and the claim seems to come just from Theoi.com (which is notoriously unreliable). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. Though the Alcman fragment [1] is the only ancient source which mentions her, there are quite a few mythological figures who may only be mentioned in a single passage or fragment, but still be deserving of a separate article; notability is determined by coverage in secondary sources, not primary ones. In this instance, we have an article [2] on this fragment, which discusses these figures and their relation to a broader discussion of the connection between Hecate and torches; I think something about their significance in that context, based on Serafini, could be added to the article. I note that they are also mentioned (though briefly) in Jennifer Larson's Greek Nymphs: Myth, Cult, Lore. However, the statement about being a gift from Zeus to Hecate (for her "loyalty" in the Titanomachy?) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and I can't find any source for it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically I believe that the scholiast on Homer is a second ancient source. It's not clear to me whether everything he says about the Lampades is from Alcman, or if he is merely citing Alcman as a source mentioning them among the groups of nymphs. As for the reason that they might have been a gift to Hecate, it could just have been inferred that all of Hecate's authority as a goddess emanated from Zeus. As I recall, she was given a share of all three worlds (the heavens, the earth, and the underworld), which is a pretty broad set of things! I was hoping Morford & Lenardon might have something to say on it, but I couldn't find anything. P Aculeius (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your first point, I would guess the latter, though it's a little hard to tell; it would be interesting to see if the scholion mentions them elsewhere, though an edition of the scholia minora might be a tricky one to hunt down. On the second point, it's possible; I'm sceptical, but would happily stand corrected. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that archive.org is fully functional again, and full text searches are available, here's a summary:
Calame offers no real interpretation, beyond that what the scholiast says is plausible, because of the strong association of Hekate and torches. Amusingly, though, he does suggests that one alternative could be to amend the text to read Limnad (the other being that they are, like the Thyades mentioned with them, to do with Dionysos, rather than Hekate).

Gantz (p.141) mentions they exist, but nothing more. His opinion is that the explanation of them being torchbearers of Hekate is probably the scholiast's own, but he gives no reason. Serafini (p. 18) seems to agree with this (but see Iles, below).

Larson uses the word but has nothing to say of them - fn. 76 simply states what the scholiast gives. The context in which they are mentioned is to do with the appearance of Dionysos in lyric and choral poetry. The important detail is the Thyades, the Lampades just happen to be in the fragment. Whilst literally true that she says something about them, it doesn't even merit being called 'mentioned in passing'. She doesn't even mention Calame's suggestion that they are also followers of Dionysos.

Serafini's paper is more about the association of Hecate and torches in general, and Hecate herself as the torch-bearer. I do not see what could be added from that article to here - no argument that hinges on the Lampades, or extra information given about them. But perhaps someone with better Italian would disagree.

An article by Sarah Iles Johnston's article argues that the 'goddesses with bright torches' mentioned in the Getty Hexameters are the Lampades (which would require the scholiast to be reporting something already in Alcman, or at least a tradition from the 5th century BCE - Iles Johnston assumes the former). Other interpretations are available. Bremmer seems to think they're Persephone and Hecate; Demeter and Persephone are another entirely plausible combo.

For the identification of the Lampades with the Avernian nymphs I can find only Theoi, which itself gives no citation, but simply gives the Alcman fragment for Lampades and then Ovid and Statius (incorrectly - the reference should be 2.6.100) for Avernian nymphs - notably neither quote has anything to do with Hecate or torches.
As to the strange detail of how Hecate acquired the Lampades, I have found a source - and it's the same source that gives us the claim (already removed by Michael Aurel) that their torches can drive people mad: Age of Mythology.

The in-game help section says this: These nymphs were the attendants of Hecate, an unbound Titaness, gifts from Zeus for her allegiance in the Titanomachy. The Lampades served their mistress unflinchingly, bearing torches for her through the dark places of the earth and underworld. The light of their torches brought visions to mortals and often the visions brought madness. The Lampades defended Hecate with their torches just as the Titaness herself fought in the wars of the gods.

This flavour text helps explain an in-game combat power of the Lampades, by which they can 'invoke chaos on units at range'. Its abilities 'chaotic realignment' turns a target neutral (by 'flashing her torch') and forces it to attack any unit nearby; 'Transfiguration' (again activated by a flash of the torch) turns the target into a chicken.

Based on the talk page of the user who created this article, I do not think it is implausible that these details find their origin there. Archive.org's first capture of the theoi article is 2006, and the game came out in 2002. But theoi itself was founded in 2000, so it is not impossible that the creators of this gaming, wanting to find units, powers, etc. that they could assign to Hecate, found the Lampades via theoi, and then expanded the idea so they had a bit more detail to stick in their flavour text. I don't think Age of Mythology is particularly renowned for its adherence to ancient sources.

What we can say for certain, then, is:

We have a single fragment of Alcman mentioning the Lampades. Scholars do not agree whether the scholiast's explanation is his own, or details that were also in Alcman. One scholar thinks that they might be referenced in the Getty Hexameters. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this digging. I've expanded the article a bit, and added new sources. I've held out on removing the unsourced paragraph in the interest of giving it a fair hearing, though I do think your explanation on the basis of the video game seems plausible; also, the latter sentence in the paragraph looks as though it has come from Theoi. [3] – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence may well come from there—but it merely restates what the article already says about being torch-bearing companions of Hecate.

I am not certain that the suggestion in one authority that the scholiast "invented" this detail isn't given undue weight here; all that we know of Greek myth comes from a small number of largely fragmentary sources, so it is quite likely that the scholiast reported what he had learned, or at least could infer from that knowledge (for instance, that Hecate's companions bore torches or lamps, presumably being goddesses like herself, and necessarily traveling by night, since that is when Hecate is abroad; and the Lampades are, by definition, the torch-bearing goddesses) rather than making up details that required pure invention on his part, which is how it reads now. I was merely indicating that we don't know whether this detail in the scholiast can be attributed to Alcman, or if the scholiast is our only known source for it.

As for their association with Hecate's reward for her rôle in the Titanomachy, that may be anyone's guess, since you haven't turned up any usable sources for it. If something turns up later, it can always be re-added. Thank you for expanding and improving the article! P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! The point you raise about the article seeming to imply a bit too much that the description of these figures was just a whimsical invention of a sort by a late commentator is fair (I've, for now, softened the language a little in that sentence). I had the same thought when writing that part, but was struggling to find a scholar who expressed an opposing view to Gantz in a clear manner: I don't think Serafini really has an opinion on the matter, Latte (cited in Davies's edition) says it's uncertain what Alcman thought of these nymphs, and regarding Calame, though he does point out that what the scholiast says is "quite possible", I'm not entirely sure whether by this he means it's "quite possible" that Alcman described the nymphs in the same way, or more generally that it makes sense that the scholiast would have made that association. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inman Harvey

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet standards of WP:NACADEMIC. Limited references, no significant expansion since last AFD in 2016, could not find more references.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

AfDs for this article:

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

Article seemingly lacks any sources aside from trade press. Even then a significant amount of coverage is related to fundraising events. Brandon (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and New York. Brandon (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sizwe Nxasana

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

Unsourced BLP article, edited by possible COI editors and IPs LR.127 (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Education, and South Africa. LR.127 (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relato K

AfDs for this article:

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

POV forking and WP:UNDUE; the article is based on the opinions of far-right politicians like Axel Kaiser. Also WP:OR?? JPerez90 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Argentina. JPerez90 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please define what do you mean when you say "far-right". Do you mean that he's right-wing, but more enthusiastic than others? How would that make him an unreliable source? Or do you mean that he's racist, white-supremacist, or something similar? That would be something else, right, but I would like to see a specific reference of that, not just a generic label that seems to be applied at random. Cambalachero (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wylie-Kellermann

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

William Black (pianist)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The 3 sources provided are all dead. A search for sources only came up with namesakes. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Texas. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Left guide (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.