Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math Lady

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. It looks like there is now a consensus to Keep this article. If you are interested in Redirection, that's a discussion that can happen on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Math Lady

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is no extra info here that isn't already present on Renata Sorrah#Meme. I propose that this page be redirected there. Babar Suhail (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babar Suhail (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough WP:GNG for a separate article & potential for expansion. As a Brazilian, I can confirm that there are multiple other sources available in Portuguese that can be added to expand the article. Skyshiftertalk 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would believe you, it'd be much better if you linked them. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you share some of these sources? My own search wasn't entirely fruitless but the articles I did find don't add much; certainly nothing that couldn't just be added to Renata Sorrah#Meme. GhostOfNoMeme 12:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Nazaré Confusa" reveals dozens of sources. Some examples are [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. It is also mentioned in multiple scholarly articles [9]. Skyshiftertalk 18:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's a greater number of sources than I had been able to find (my Google search for "Nazaré Confusa" was returning completely off-topic results by page 4). I got zero hits on Google News; I hadn't even thought to check Google Scholar, given the topic — good call. I've changed my !vote to Keep after reviewing the links. GhostOfNoMeme 03:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Mathematics, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfDs are for deletion not for discussing if a redirect is appropriate. That should have been made on the talk page of the article. And only if such a discussion had not allowed to reach any consensus should we have been discussing this here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, it's not unusual for a nominator to propose a Redirect or Merge instead of a Deletion. In fact, it's pretty common so I don't understand why you are scolding this editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry if I sounded agressive but I mentioned this because if they don’t wish deletion or think it’s a fair or even possible outcome, they should not open an AfD but rather discuss the merge on the merge discussion they can open and the redirect on the talk page, or boldly redirect the page and explain why. If my advice was wrong, I apologise. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD-R: If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Only applies to redirecting. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but please, I must insist, and quote your quote:"If the change is disputed via a reversion": was this the case here? and did I mean anything else in my initial comment? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's Math Lady, she deserves it. That being consensus before effectively blanking a popular thing on the internet. This is just WP:BOLD all over. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea of what you mean by that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the subject's popularity, BLARing might be controversial. In accordance with BOLD, such actions should be discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. But that was and is exactly my point: why take (potentially notable or apparently popular) pages to Afds if you suggest a redirect i.e. if you think a redirect is to be considered? Just ASK competent users. Discussions can happen ON TALK PAGES OF ARTICLES: that is why they have been created. USE TALK PAGES not AfDs. (I’m not shouting, nor upset, mere emphasis). Thanks again. I’ll leave this discussion now. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, AfDs suggest redirects all the time. It's pretty much just accepted. See: Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect? which ended in: Allowing the nominator to advocate redirect is current practice, and this debate shows no consensus to change that. The case is also well made that this has obvious utility in establishing an unambiguous consensus that an article should not exist in its own right, even if a redirect is appropriate.

On the other hand: There is a clear numerical and policy-weighed consensus that AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged. The first attempt at redirection ought be directly attempted per our principles of being bold. – from this discussion. Nevertheless, deciding to head straight to AfD is arguably itself WP:BOLD! Regardless, it's a fairly regular occurrence that rarely gets questioned or challenged. I don't see the harm in it, myself. GhostOfNoMeme 13:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Am I therefore correct to assume that there is no consensus regarding the question? I apologise if I was wrong or too harsh but my personal view remains unchanged: AfDs take time and efforts and involve many or at least various users; they are limited in time; my point is that they should be used for deletion and deletion only or at least only if deletion is considered a fair outcome by the nominator. Talk pages exist for a reason and if a rough consensus is reached to redirect or if a redirect is explained and unchallenged on the talk page (or boldly performed, and not challenged nor reverted, obviously), AfDs should not even be considered (imho). Thanks again, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates for BLAR often have little attention and little page watching. Combined with the absence of a categorizing template to attract foreign attention, I expect many such talk page proposals to have little participation.
To me and many others, BLAR and merging are just deletion with extra steps: slapping a redirect on it and, in the latter case, adding content to the merge target. I don't see how that takes so much more effort, why it should take unlimited time, or how the core question on whether the article can stand alone is any different. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Films/television/music..and Web etc have categorized templates; and I beg to differ: AfDs take more effort, or at least a different kind of efforts, in particular because they are limited in time (I am not saying they should not), and the core question is not the same (should we delete this#can we redirect this?). Also, people on the talk page of an article are in general more competent regarding the topic and are generally there with the idea of improving the page (and with more knowledge or more interest for the topic) (with time), not getting rid of potential crap (in a hurry). Different mindsets (in general; obviously the same persons might show up at both venues). In the present case, if this had been discussed before, that would have saved us some time, I think, as this will be kept and should not imv have come here and wouldn’t have if it had been discussed thoroughly with knowledgeable competent willing users on the talk page. Also taking the page to Afd might be disheartening for the creator and casts a shadow of doubt on the page, it is not a random let alone insignificant maintenance process and this shows through the tag (during the 8 days or 1 month of the discussion) and through the Old Afd template (unexperienced readers might see it and think ’Hey, look, wait, they say this might be rubbish’) A talk page where redirect is discussed offers none of these shortcomings, at least in my opinion as reader. Anyway, maybe this is not the place for such a long discussion, and thank you for your input and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even considering Portuguese-language sources I was able to find, coverage doesn't seem significant enough that it can't, per nom, simply go into Renata Sorrah#Meme. A standalone article is unwarranted. GhostOfNoMeme 12:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Skyshifter kindly replied to share the Portuguese-language sources she had referenced some days earlier, and after reading through them I'm changing my vote. Her sources are more numerous than I had been able to find myself, and a majority appear to be WP:RS. The coverage is more than passing mention and the focus is on the meme itself; not wholly separate from Renata Sorrah, naturally, but sufficiently so in my view to establish separate notability. The Google Scholar search was an interesting avenue I hadn't thought to explore. With WP:GNG satisfied I think the article should be kept. GhostOfNoMeme 02:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 23:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sky's linked sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP: HEY if the sources found are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 15 September 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.