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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Khanna[edit]

Tushar Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, Google shows lots of passing mentions but no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources that could satisfy general notability guideline. I failed to find anything about his role in anthology series Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya except Tellychakkar.com whose reliability hasn't been established. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE does not meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2017 (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.

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 speedy delete. The original tag as speedy delete is appropriate DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Mark Bartolome[edit]

John Mark Bartolome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of available reliable sources. - MrX 23:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I haven't found any reliable independent sources regarding the subject, and none are provided in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The picture suggests WP:VANITY issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This was CSD A7, but removed by editor. Fails GNG and BAND. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:54, 18 June 2017 (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.

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 speedily deleted per the article creator's request. See WP:CSD#G7. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Book Review[edit]

Latino Book Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. While the article was previously unsourced and now is not, I note that it is only sourced to the website of the subject. Worthy project though this may be, I don't see any evidence of it having attracted enough coverage to be notable. While largely irrelevant for XfD purposes, I note too that the article creator would seem to be the same person as the founder of the site. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Urban Energy Policy Institute[edit]

The Urban Energy Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is sourced only to its own website, and has existed in that state for years. The website is not currently online. A New York Times archive search (I am a subscriber) finds nothing about this organization at all, not so much as a mention. A google search finds its LinkedIn and facebook pages, and this article. And those pages give little information beyond links to the inactive web site.

Moreover the "topics" section appears to be a set of min-articles about energy policy, but not about this organization, its activities, if any, its policies, its leadership, or its public statements on these topics.

There is no indication that this organization is notable. Indeed beyond a LinkedIn page and a facebook page, there is no evidence that it even exists. Delete as not-notable, unless better sources are found and cited. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• commetn It appears that at least some of the article was copied from an earlier version of the organization's site, see Archives https://web.archive.org/web/20111020150935/http://uepinst.org:80/non-profit-status/ Or perhaps the copy went the other way. As the source is available only on an archive, and I can't rule out backwards copying, I haven't tagged this for speedy deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As stated by DES. The non-responsiveness of the web site is not a reason to delete. The Roman Empire doesn't have a responding web site. However, the lack of any third-party sources is reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH. There just isn't any significant coverage. MarnetteD|Talk 01:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC) MarnetteD|Talk 01:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this group has, or had, a worthy missing, which is fine. However, I see how it might be considered a fork of United States energy policy. I would also consider a merger to that article or United States energy law. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In addition to the reasoning above (eg. GNG; WP:CORPDEPTH), this article appears to be written like an advertisement. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:59, 24 June 2017 (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.

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 redirect to Canada's Wonderland. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soaring Timbers[edit]

Soaring Timbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this ride is notable, or even that it is open yet. It did not open for the start of this season as was planned http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/new-ride-at-canada-s-wonderland-not-ready-for-opening-day-1.3390897 This article was redirected to the amusement park pending notability of the ride, but the article creator is aggressively defending it. I think this should remain as a redirect until there are independent reliable refs showing that this ride is in operation and is notable. Meters (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article creator's latest edit [1] this ride is not in operation. Meters (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV. The only coverage are press releases and some local press.- MrX 21:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My results showed much the same as MrX, it was either press releases or simply stating that it was down for maintenance. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP is not a platform for advertisements. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect - that's what I initially did and would prefer. For all I know, this might be, or might become, very well-known. Deb (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed. It's a viable redirect, with a possibility for a future article. No need to delete. I just brought ti here to end the edit war over the redirect by seeing if there was a consensus for a redirect. Meters (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Related: A similar article Muskoka Plunge has been nominated for deletion.- MrX 15:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – The flat ride is not something that will generate a lot of press, since it isn't breaking any records. What little press it might generate over time can be mentioned at Canada's Wonderland in a ride description. It does appear that the ride has been operational this season, but that shouldn't impact whether or not this article exists. Most rides of this mediocre magnitude enter and exit without much of a bang, so as MrX stated, it fails WP:SIGCOV. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I've notified the affiliated WikiProject that there are several AfD discussions involving amusement rides. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian America[edit]

Victorian America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I increasingly believe that this article should be deleted and its content moved into other articles. I don't see the article as having established clearly that the Victorian era has a specific meaning in American political or cultural history that's different to 'the nineteenth century apart from the first third or so'. It is, after all, named after a queen who never ruled or even visited the USA.

In order to be relevant, I think this article would need to demonstrate some or all of:

• That 1837-1901 represents a defined period in American culture which shadowed aspects of British culture of the same period in defined ways.
• That 'the Victorian era' is commonly used by American historians to describe this period.

Instead of doing these, this article has no sources at all.

I'm not American or a specialist in American history, but I find all of this implausible and certainly not demonstrated by this article: the Victorian era bridges many periods of American politics which feel like useful definitions to me, including antebellum to post-reconstruction, and from the pre-railway era to the Gilded age. It feels like a walled garden-type article that shadows the real America-in-the-19th-century articles while containing content that could be better put there.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject doesn't exist. You cannot place the periodization of one region on top of the events of an entirely separate region. Shame on every editor that saw this disaster and failed to nominate it for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is entirely unsourced, and reads like a personal essay. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what they said. This overlays an irrelevant and inapt framework on American history. It is arbitrary (but convenient and with longstanding practice) to divide English history by monarch reign, but it is entirely meaningless in an American context. It artificially divides the Antebellum period, while lumping periods that are quite distinct in an American context. Yes, there were some parallel developments, but not enough to justify the artificiality of such a division. Agricolae (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yeah, as the person who originally raised this, time hasn't made this article look better. We have some great articles on nineteenth-century America, this duplicates them pointlessly. Blythwood (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not verifiable. Article does not point to, as I thought it might, any reason for imposing a British political / social / economic era onto American history. Current content is similar to a school essay with broad generalizations and lazy assumptions with little connection to "Victorian" ideas apart from happening in the same time period. --Lockley (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only thing Victorian America really has is the housing style. Nate • (chatter) 03:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but even that is dubious. That linked article states "Victorian era refers to a time period and not to a style." --Lockley (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The reign of Victoria is a random section of American history, where the normal periods are colonial, ante-bellum and more recent. The Civil War which occurred in the middle of the reign is the key event of the period. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The closest match to US history is that it does correspond quite closely to the Second Party System and Third Party System that together run from about 1828 to 1896 but that's still not enough for it to be a sensible periodisation, any more than you'd lump the French 2nd and 3rd republics together. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Archer (producer)[edit]

Andrew Archer (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as we do usually with such articles about ordinary music producers. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not appear to be independently notable. Happy to reconsider, now or in the future, if substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources can be found of this subject. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2017 (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.

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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. There appears to be some kind of loose consensus in favor of both deletion and merge into an article that as best I can tell does not currently exist. I would encourage those who voted for this course or something similar to boldly create a new article and merge whatever they think useful and that is adequately referenced, being at all times mindful of WP:V. After which this article can either be turned into a redirect or renominated for deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naqeebia[edit]

Naqeebia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Was dePRODed without addressing the issue. Concern was: Essay or original research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unsourced OR and POV advocacy essay. No opinion on potential notability, so no objection to a more competent recreation.  Sandstein  21:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Draftify even tho it is not very likely someone will work on it, as we have few editors in this area. But it might well be notable if properly soured. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've found enough material to write an article about Muhammad Azmat Ullah Shah, including RS(?) that he was the leader of a Naqeebi group of Sufis.[2] This is enough, to me, to have Naqeebia/Naqeebi redirect to Muhammud Azmat Ullah Shah (until if/when rs on the whole order can be found). It isn't enough, to me, for this article to clearly satisfy WP:V. My recommendation is that this article be renamed Muhammad Azmat Ullah Shah, the material on Naqeeb Ullah Shah and the Naqeebia order trimmed (and tagged cn where necessary) and used as context for the article on Amat Ullah Shah. Going this route (renaming) maintains the edit history and authorship. If this article is deleted, I'll likely try to write an article on Azmat Ullah Shah in any case. In the meantime, moving to draft space works for me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've got a draft of a page on Azmat Ullah Shah as a section of this article, Naqeebia#Sufi Muhammad Azmat Ullah Shah, which could be placed at Muhammad Azmat Ullah Shah. Basically, everything I can find in reliable sources about the Naqeebi order is contained in that text, so I still don't see Naqeebia as meeting WP:V in a stand-alone article (if my Urdu were better, an external link is naqeeb.org). I do guess that Naqeeb Ullah and Naqeebia are notable, but with currently offline sources. If the result of this discussion is to delete, please feel free to move that section to that redlink or to my userspace so I can do so. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article, but merge cited content to a future Muhammad Azmat Ullah Shah article per User:Smmurphy's reasoning above. There are reliable sources to be found on an individual who can possibly be described as notable in his own right, and that should be salvaged, but the order in and of itself doesn't seem to make the cut of WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and allow creation of a sourced article on Naqeebia#Sufi_Muhammad_Azmat_Ullah_Shah. The rest is unsourced fancruft (?). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2017 (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.

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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I would however encourage anyone considering renomination to bear in mind that this AfD garnered significant participation with sharply divided opinions. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kill Bill characters[edit]

List of Kill Bill characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article consists almost entirely of fancruft with few sources. Very little of the information is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The Kill Bill series only comprises two films; information about its characters can be sufficiently covered in the articles for those films. Popcornduff (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems fine.Mishigas (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your reasoning? Popcornduff (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

looks like a good amount of work went into this article. If there aren't individual articles for the films listing characters, probably not duplicative. I couldn't really read the whole thing, but it looked ok. If you had to write a book report on this film, this article would be useful. Remember that Wikipedia's core audience is college students desperately trying to write essays with only 12 hours to go, and no time to read the book or watch the film themselves. Let's not let them down. Mishigas (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with the nom, it's a lot of fancruft, with little or no sourcing and no real-world notability. It's a sneaky way of adding lots of trivia for every (minor) character in the film without bloating the main article. Speaking of which, the articles for the films contain all the salient character points, making this redudant. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep and cleanup and/or spin out appropriately. Going through the above Google Scholar inks on each of the above finds a plethora of papers focusing in on multiple characters, such as Themes of Whiteness in Bulletproof Monk, Kill Bill, and The Last Samurai, Lara Croft, Kill Bill, and the battle for theory in feminist film studies, Revenge and the Family Romance in Tarantino’s Kill Bill, "Mommy Is a Bride With a Hanzo Sword: quentin tarantino's destabilization of Gendered Identity in Kill Bill", Mindful violence: the visibility of power and inner life in Kill Bill... and I could go on and on and on. If anything, this AfD highlights that there is enough critical commentary and real life reception to support individual character articles on at least the six main characters. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)\]\[reply]
  • Irrelevant - you provided sources for notability of the KB movies, but not for the list of characters. I'll ping User:Aoba47 since he voted keep per those sources - can someone explain how they prove notability of this list? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you actually seem to be serious here, and haven't struck the comment, I'm going to answer it, even though my initial inclination was to be polite and ignore it, rather than call attention to such a ridiculous question. The sources I listed above, and others like them, are independent reliable sources discussing the movies at length. In the process of discussing the movies, these sources' attention turns to the characters portrayed in the movies, and, in the process of doing so, provides substantial, independent, reliably sourced analysis of those characters. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think, if you actually examine these sources, it's difficult to mine them for enough specific discussion of all the characters in the Kill Bill films sufficient to justify this page. They aren't the focus of the papers. Popcornduff (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by Jclemens. This kind of list can work, such as the one about the Alien series; this list needs work and cleanup, but there is potential here given the above commentary from Jclemens. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and soft delete (create a disambig) to appropriate movies. Not seeing why we need a separate list. Unlike the Alien universe mentioned above, which consists of dozens if not hundreds of works, Kill Bill seems limited to the two movies. Sources cited above prove notability of the movies beyond doubt, but say little about the notability of this list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my position. Kill Bill is just two movies. We don't need an entire article dedicated to its characters when we can cover that perfectly well in the film articles. We also have a Kill Bill article that covers the series, where the information could go instead, maybe. (Though frankly I'm not sure that Kill Bill series page is justified either, but that's a matter for another AfD.) Popcornduff (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you have failed to advance an effective nomination: You can't start an AfD and suggest that the article be merged. See WP:SK Clause #1. See WP:PM for how to actually propose what you're suggesting. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I haven't suggested the article be merged - almost everything on it right now is uncited fancruft. There's nothing to merge. Popcornduff (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC) edit: To clarify, when I wrote "this is my position", I meant I agreed with the rationale above. I didn't mean we should merge instead of delete. Apologies. Popcornduff (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't exactly agree with a rationale for a merge and then turn around and say delete: They're different outcomes for different situations, and a rationale for one will almost never support the other outcome. Further, you now argue that this article should be deleted based on its current state, rather than its potential, contra WP:NOTCLEANUP. Fundamentally, the reason this should be one or more standalone articles is that there is sufficient independent RS critical commentary on the characters (rather than just the films) that individual character articles could be created which would be verifiable, notable, and not run afoul of any NOT criteria. Jclemens (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started this AFD with the arguments that we don't need an article for these characters (ie there's no reason to clean it up), and that the current version of the article has nothing of value on it (ie nothing worth merging). Whether those arguments hold weight is a separate issue, but I'd at least like to deflect accusations of shifting goalposts, like this: "You now argue that this article should be deleted based on its current state, rather than its potential" - No I don't! I'm saying it has no potential and nothing here is worth merging. I might be wrong on that, but I haven't "turned around" on anything, I haven't changed my arguments, and I think Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's comment is consistent with those arguments. Popcornduff (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)-[reply]

So, now that I have demonstrated (via the links above, a mere sampling of the critical commentary easily available) that there exists plenty of critical commentary on these characters, are you interested in revising your nomination statement or striking it entirely? I am almost but not quite completely unconcerned with the current state of the article, as are our policies: whether it has the potential to grow into a decent article is the governing question. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, nobody but you agrees that your sources demonstrate anything. They are not a critical commentary on the characters, but on the series itself. Big difference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. Reviewing the sources you provide, there seems to be a lot of critical and theoretical discussion of the Kill Bill movies, all of which could be added to the film pages, but I see nothing here to demonstrate the need for a page specifically about its characters. The exception is perhaps for the Bride, the protagonist, but that's not what this page is doing. Popcornduff (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, please don't badger people with requests that are not part of the policy. There is no requirement of discusisng merger before deletion if one determines there is nothing to merge. Popcornduff says this is fancruft, or OR, and if this is what he believes (and I mostly agree with him) there is nothing to merge. Fancruft belongs on wikias, not Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So wait... is there, or is there not something to merge? You said merge. He said you were right. I said that's not consistent. Now you say he's right. I'm sorry if it looks like to you like I'm badgering nominators when I'm trying to get a straight answer so I can detail why the associated underlying policy does or does not apply in the way the nominator suggests. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sure we can rescue a few sentences, at least. So there is a bit of content to merge. Fancruftish, but that's plot summary in most cases anyway. So yes, there's a bit we can merge, but at the same time if this is deleted, I don't think we would lose much. Honestly, if I want to read about KB characters, I'd go to [3], where I'd expect most fans to go to anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fancruft. No critical analysis or evaluations, just in-world retelling of plot. Not suitable for encyclopedia. Renata (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that my WP:NOTCLEANUP argument, above, applies to this !vote as well. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete - There are not enough sources detailing real world information to justify the amount of plot in the article. It is currently just an unnecessary, overly in-depth plot summary with no justification. It does not act as a companion article to contain proper information that otherwise would not fit, but instead acts as a dumping ground for information that is more suited to Wikia. The above sources do not show any potential for improvement of this topic. TTN (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as a major film, we do want information on the characters, and most of it can be sourced from the film itself. Since the work is made up of two closely connected parts, it makes sense to put this all in one place. DGG ( talk ) 13:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean it up extensively. Add more citations, fix any grammatical or spelling errors, and put some more emphasis on the notability and impact of the characters in pop culture rather than simply engaging in "fancruft". No need to delete, but a large need for cleanup. –Matthew - (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – While I certainly understand arguments from the delete and/or merge camps, it seems like there's enough in this list article that can be retained with a careful rework, sifting out the fluff and trivia that has been a major concern. Then if the remaining content is minuscule in comparison, we can propose a merger into one or both of the film articles. As it stands now, a merger isn't realistic without an idea of what will be merged. Also, I've always felt that deletion requires a very strong case, as opposed to retention which only requires a reasonable doubt that valid content will be lost. Seems like the latter has more justification at this juncture. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTPLOT. It is basically a page of fictional character biographies and per WP:JUSTPLOT Wikipedia should only be providing a description of fictional works to the extent it supports real-world commentary. Betty Logan (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill the list. There's nothing of any importance here that isn't already in the two movie articles. The rest is details that someone couldn't stuff into the limited-length synopses. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A lot of useful content here if this is cleaned up significantly. This was a significant film with a major fan following, and this sort of detail is what is needed in the world's pre-eminent encyclopedia. Agree that there is way too much "fancruft", but this can be deleted. 173.239.207.50 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, Double Keep with a lethal snake-bite cherry on top, seriously?? An article like this is actually being considered for deletion? It's Kill Bill for Pai Mei's sake, not some third-rate dime-a-dozen film forgotten within weeks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Have done some edits on the page, but it seems most of the material is fine and advances the understanding of the film. If this page, which averages well over 500 views a day, were to be thrown out with tomorrow's Wikipedia trash, then many of the characters would be worthy of their own pages - so keeping them contained in this one serves the purpose of such a well viewed, read, and used on a daily basis character-page. While I've been doing an edit run through the Kill Bill pages (which is how I found this deletion nom) I've seen dozens of links to this page. That shows its usefulness, its fully-realized development, and its importance to Wikipedia's Kill Bill collection (as an important film, would like to note that Roger Ebert called it the best film of the decade). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the Kill Bill films is not in question. Can you produce reliable sources demonstrating that the characters are notable independently of the two Kill Bill films? Popcornduff (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Characters are notable for the films, television shows, theatrical productions, or other formats in which they appear, that's why there are 'Lists of characters'. There are hundreds if not thousands of these lists presented on Wikipedia, all with their primary topic being a particular production. If this fine Kill Bill character page is removed from Wikipedia then all the others should be tossed out with the remaining bathwater. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects should only have their own pages when sources demonstrate they are independently notable. Can you provide these? As for your other argument, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Popcornduff (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then please put all of the other 'List of character' pages up for deletion. My "argument" includes WP:COMMONSENSE. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you didn't read WP:OTHERSTUFF. "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not ... So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. " Popcornduff (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFF is a good argument when the "other" in "other stuff" is a single article, or perhaps a handful. Character lists for fictional franchises are everywhere (well, in fictional franchises, at any rate) in Wikipedia, and Kill Bill is not a particularly bad or exceptional case of one. Sure, it's two movies, but that doesn't mean a character list is inappropriate. Look for List of X characters where X is any sort of a fictional franchise, and you'll find something--maybe a disambiguation, maybe a redirect, maybe a list like this. So yes, there is a time and place for an OTHERSTUFF argument. WP:SSEFAR is a part of that same essay. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of characters are justified for franchises with several instalments and where sources 1) show that the characters are notable independently of the franchise and 2) provide enough material to justify their own page. Examples of this include franchises like Harry Potter, Star Wars, and so on. Kill Bill, as I have argued already, doesn't meet those criteria. There are only two films (which are kind of one film split in two anyway) and no one has yet provided the required sources. The fact that Wikipedia almost certainly has other similar unjustified articles has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I mean, sure, go ahead and nominate those pages for deletion too, where you find them. But this one's about Kill Bill. Popcornduff (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge concise versions of character descriptions to Kill Bill. While I agree that the films have received extensive academic coverage (as I researched and listed at Talk:Kill Bill/references years ago), this does not necessarily automatically permit a list article for the characters. The problem is that this list article entirely violates WP:PLOT and WP:WAF from the get-go. Multiple film series articles have actor/role sections indicating film appearances, and Kill Bill is no exception. I see no problem with a little more detail about each fictional character, but if we were to trim this list (and it would be truly decimated), it would fit comfortably at the film series article. The academic coverage does not directly prove that a list of characters would be notable. It proves that Analysis of Kill Bill could be notable because that scope is self-evident. (Though such content, if minimal at first, would warrant being started at the main article and be split. This outgrowth is what I refer to next.) We cannot tell from looking at the possible references that coverage can be written to talk about each character distinctly. How do we know whether or not most of the analysis requires being under a section heading broader than one character's section heading (or listing)? To create an article about a fictional character, it is possible to pull together details and have a write-up that, while somewhat redundant to content elsewhere, can stand distinctly. However, a case has to be made through active editing and not presumed. There needs to be reliably sourced and detailed distinct write-ups of multiple characters to warrant splitting from Kill Bill as not to overwhelm it. That would be the proper encyclopedic outgrowth for certain topics that exist under the notability umbrella of the broader topics (the films themselves). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Your key point is ...but if we were to trim this list (and it would be truly decimated). Why would we want to decimate this page, which has had 52,000 views in the past 90 days without a complaint, and with probably most readers enjoying it? I've never read it before, did an edit run, and enjoyed the page very much, it is very informative. It augments this highly acclaimed film in a nice way. Why not just do the radical thing here, the WP:COMMONSENSE thing, and leave it alone and move on. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it violates WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. On Wikipedia, We don't write in-universe content about fiction at length. We write enough in-universe content to complement the out-of-universe content about said fiction. How about linking to Kill Bill Wiki for that amount of in-universe content? Not sure if it can meet EL standards, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For the closer. Please consider calling this page saved by WP:COMMONSENSE. I don't know how often closers use the WP:COMMONSENSE option, which trumps all other guidelines and rules, but this seems a good candidate. There are hundreds of lists like this here, I come across them probably on a daily or semi-daily basis, so why evict one which adds extensive detail to our Kill Bill pages. This list is very good (please read it), informative, and likely one of Wikipedia's most popular character lists with over 500 readers a day. Yes, WP:ILIKEIT, and I'd bet thousands of readers have liked it in the past week alone. Kill Bill is the type of long and acclaimed film which has so many multiple characters and stories, so many inter-character patterns, and is done in such a way that each character comes with a backstory which the film succeeds in bringing out and which is caught very well in this character list. Again, please read it, and see for yourself that the thing holds the readers attention. Fancruft it may be on some level, but look at the amount of fans (i.e. Encyclopedia readers) it attracts and educates every day! That's a main reason an encyclopedia like ours exists, to give the readers what they come looking for, and this article does that well. Please consider saving it exactly as is, per WP:COMMONSENSE. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The list is not "very good" in the slightest. There is barely any out-of-universe content about the fictional characters. I could understanding arguing to keep the list in a more trimmed form, but nothing justifies the excessive in-universe content that goes against WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I enjoyed the entire article, and learned a lot about this film. From my point of view, trimming much would only hurt the page and lessen its content, and deleting it makes no sense in terms of its long-term stability and popularity. So my request to save it through WP:COMMONSENSE stands. There are hundreds of pages worse than this in lists and minor articles, and this one is a popular and productive page. To throw rules and guidelines at it just to erase it from the encyclopedia is choosing one popular page out of many poorly read character pages, and I don't understand why editors would want to delete or even merge it. As mentioned, it has many links to it, which likely accounts for much of the traffic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Without context, the write-up is fine. With context, it is simply not suitable for Wikipedia. We are supposed to write about works of fiction from a real-world perspective. This is the equivalent of a film article having the same setup: 5,000 words of plot detail and barely anything else. (Whereas the film is more readily established as a directly notable topic per reviews and similar coverage about it.) Assuming the status quo, cleanup would be warranted regardless. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:39, 22 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda Gosbee[edit]

Belinda Gosbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing enough to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG here. Film and TV credits mentioned are not significant roles. Stage roles do not appear to be in notable productions, e.g. according to AusStage, The Crucible was with New Theatre in Sydney which is not professional. Boneymau (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Significant sources do not appear independent or reliable, and reliable sources are to only one regional stage performance. WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG both require more than that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Insufficient credits and press coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2017 (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.

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 merge to Flanaess. SoWhy 07:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

County of Urnst[edit]

County of Urnst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is one of many fictional subdivisions of fictional settings for D&D. It is trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This page is in context of the Greyhawk world of Dungeons of Dragons, which Wikipedia has a nice chunk of information on already. I see no reason why I should favor delete over merging, considering that it is a more specific page on something that clearly IS notable. Merge with Flanaess. Borderlandor (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete, unless third-party sources are forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Flanaess. The article lacks even a single citation. Zero citations = WP:V FAIL = nothing to merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2017 (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.

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 merge to Flanaess. SoWhy 07:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gran March[edit]

Gran March (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the tag says it all "describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is one of many fictional subdivisions of fictional settings for D&D. It is trivial. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletion is not cleanup. Since we're just the same five or six people repeating ourselves in a petty e-crusade on a tabletop game, I'll just link to what I said on the Land of Geoff. Merge with Flanaess. Borderlandor (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect then; there's nothing to merge as the article does not cite independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, independent sourcing is needed for WP:N, not WP:V, so the lack of independent sourcing does not impair this topic's mergeability. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article as not notable (trivia) and redirect the name, as suggested above. Kierzek (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per established notability. --24.112.231.178 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Flanaess. The article lacks even a single citation. Zero citations = WP:V FAIL = nothing to merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've no opposition to a merge and redirect if there's a suitable target and someone is willing to do the legwork, but there's no good reason to keep this article unless some third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2017 (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.

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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenfetch[edit]

Screenfetch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG - non notable software TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Screenfetch is a popular tool for sharing screenshots of Linux desktops. Articles covering screenfetch include [4] [5] [6] [7]. Microsoft even featured it on their Linux on Windows demonstration. [8] Also the Spanish Wikipedia has a longer article and more references. Henry (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Henry. –XboxGamer22408^talk 18:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of those refs aren't reliable, secondary sources. Is there really no list of Linux tools/terminal scripts that can house the few sentences of coverage this warrants?  czar 17:09, 24 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freight payment service[edit]

Freight payment service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a long article in essay form, offering advice to the reader, with only two independent references. Probable conflict of interest involved. Deb (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article has changed somewhat over the years, but examination of a sample of versions over its history suggests that at no time has it been anything other than an essay, giving personal commentary and, as Deb says, advice to the reader. Virtually all of the content of the article has always been unsourced. It has also been repeatedly edited over the years by editors with a clear connection to one company, who have added promotional links to this and other articles, and it seems plausible that it has always been promotional in intent; it has certainly always had a promotional tone. There is also a possibility of copyright infringement, as pointed out on the article's talk page almost 6 years ago. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is an essay, and thus should be deleted. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can just see a wall of text, without any proper encyclopedic value. There's also the issue of how few sources are used. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) 20:05, 20 June 2017 (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.

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 redirect to Free culture movement. Redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libre culture[edit]

Libre culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:POVFORK of Free culture movement, which shares many of the same problems as others in this series (Libre knowledge, Libre art, Libre (word)): essay-ish, original research, biased piece, with over-interpretation of sources happening all over the place. Take note of the unsourced definition of "librart", which I mentioned as a problem in one of the previous nominations; this was not addressed in any way in this article either.

I have no objections to redirecting this title to Free culture movement, but after this page is deleted. —Keφr 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; not really separate from either Free culture movement (or Free software movement). Some content could plausibly be retained in either of those articles, although much of it is largely the same. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
  to reply to me 08:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Pretty much the same focus as the article on the free culture movement. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:09, 17 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. czar 17:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Sweet![edit]

Make It Sweet! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable album for a non notable band with a now deleted article. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Source searches provide no significant coverage; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM.  gongshow  talk  08:36, 19 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. czar 17:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Maden[edit]

Tom Maden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In addition to being a technical WP:NACTOR fail (no main cast roles on a TV series – even "Scream" was just a recurring role), this is also a pretty clear WP:BASIC fail: I sourced this one from scratch myself, but there is no in-depth or "significant coverage" here, only passing mentions. It's possible that this article may exist in a year or two, but right now it seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. no major roles. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage available is trivial. Agree with the assessment that this is potentially WP:TOOSOON. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:56, 21 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. The sole Keep is based on claims that are not supported by citations to reliable sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luiza Borac[edit]

Luiza Borac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent sources attest notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete was tagged for BLPProD, but was sourced to subject's web page, so deProDed. Honestly, we need to tweak BLPProD better, or use ProD more appropraitely. Highly ProDable. Which is to say, probably subject exists as has webpage. Just does not meet the GNG. I suspect, that when one removes a BLPProD, one should replace with ProD unless one has found some inkling of the subject actually being notable. If such inkling is found, would it not be best to add sourcing? Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She placed second in the Gina Bachauer International Piano Competition, which is good enough for me to presume that she is notable. The additional assertions of achievements mean that if they are correct, she is clearly notable within a certain international community. Can someone knowledgeable about piano please de-effuse the text, though? - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second place, though — if that's all there is to say about her, we may as well limit our mention to the Bachauer article.
  • For the rest, I encourage you to review WP:V — the content is utterly unverified, so for our purposes, may as well not exist. One doesn't get to add material to this encyclopedia and simply have it accepted at face value. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:36, 11 June 2017 (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.

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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In The Family (2017 TV series)[edit]

In The Family (2017 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a yet-to-be-broadcast television series. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 10:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does exist: https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/zh/一家人 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.98.51 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - is this show related to Love Family (TV series)? Having looked through the Chinese Wikipedia's entries on the same topic, I would presume that it is notable rather than presume that it is not. We really need someone from Taiwan to look at this. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it isnt you can find promos for the show on youtube on the taste of life (now called in the family) youtube channel - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.251.98.51 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 48: Bang The Drum[edit]

Chapter 48: Bang The Drum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable event. PROGRESS Wrestling has run nearly 50 'Chapter' events and there's no need for any of them - let alone this non-notable example - to have their own pages IanPCP (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom; this is a single pro wrestling show date that's not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom. One Chapter that is no notable --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another Progress article that isn't independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2017 (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.

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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Relisted twice so it's time to move on, but I must say I was not overly impressed by the level of policy/guideline based arguments presented here. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Case for Latvia[edit]

The Case for Latvia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tagged as not-notable since 2011. Bringing here for community input. Sagecandor (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because the author is notable, the publisher serious, and the topic intriguing, I tried to source this one. No go. Best I came up with was a press release the year it was published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you search for sources in Finnish, Latvian, or Russian? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since the article tells why the book is notable. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The fact that it has been translate4d multiple times implies it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable per sources, and per above Keep comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• How is this book independently notable from the author, even based on the sources? And where are the book reviews? czar 17:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Case for Latvia is part of the academic series (WP:TBK) On the Boundary of Two Worlds: Identity, Freedom, and Moral Imagination in the Baltics, which has a scholarly editorial board. I have added a new section on the reception of The Case for Latvia. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the author article, Jukka Rislakki. I was not able to find sufficient independent reviews to establish stand-alone notability for the book. There's no need for two separate articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Anyone with access to Journal of Baltic Studies might find this book review interesting. I haven't got access, unfortunately. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:30, 24 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. czar 16:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikechukwu Odikpo[edit]

Ikechukwu Odikpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails NPOL and GNG Chetsford (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This has a decidedly advertorial lean to it, and contains nothing that would confer an automatic pass of any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion standards — he's not a political officeholder, but merely a political party organizer, which is not an WP:NPOL pass. And the sourcing doesn't get him over WP:GNG either — of the five footnotes here, two are unnecessary reduplications of one of the other three, so we're really looking at three sources, not five. And of those three, two are Q&A interviews in which he's giving statements of opinion about something other than himself, which are not sources that can assist a GNG pass because they're not coverage about him — and the third is here to verify a tangential fact about a project his party was involved in, but completely fails to even mention his name in conjunction with that at all, so it contributes nothing toward notability either. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a routine search on Google News brings up nothing. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete subject of discission does not qualify WP:GNG & thus does not merit a stand alone article on the encylopedia Celestina007 (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2017 (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.

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 redirect to Poor relief. Unsourced, so source+merge as appropriate. Act for the Relief of the Poor 1601#Main points of the 1601 Act might also be a good target. czar 16:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classifications of poor used in the Poor Law system[edit]

Classifications of poor used in the Poor Law system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced. Lacks background which would make the article useful. Poor law lasted several hundred years. Principles and policies changed during that time, but this article does not mention that, so it is misleading. Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Poor law - given the lengths of article I am not sure how this is separate? Artw (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2017 (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.

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 speedy delete G5 (blocked user IMZahidIqbal) (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 07:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artist KcK[edit]

Artist KcK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:MUSICBIO. Trivial coverage of the subject in secondary sources, no top-charting singles, no awards, seems like this is WP:TOOSOON Comatmebro (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete G5 block by IMZahidIqbal 66.87.68.228 (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2017 (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.

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbate-a-thon[edit]

Masturbate-a-thon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined PROD. Not notable; this was a marketing campaign by a (notable) sex-toy store and the references are promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Great cause, but I don't think this belongs on WP. Doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. Comatmebro (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic....Sulaimandaud (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While the topic here doesn't sound like ........ a thing........ it turns out that there have been "masturbate-a-thons" since 1995, starting, you guessed it, in San Francisco. There are numerous stories in SF Weekly over the years — I'm getting an "unsecure link" warning from one of them so I won't link up here but a cursory search of the Googles will get you there. THIS PIECE from the very serious Salon deals with Masturbation Month and puts "masturbate-a-thons" into context. THIS PIECE from Philly Mag deals, ummmm, in depth about a Philadelphia event. HERE is coverage from Fox News Philly about the same event in that city in 2013. Here is UPI COVERAGE of a masturbate-a-thon in Denmark. Here is THE REGISTER on the spread of this American "degeneracy" to the UK... Masturbate-a-thons get mention in Paul Krassner's book, In Praise of Indecency, pg. 33... I'm really getting in the rhythm here, but it's probably time for me to buzz off. The only possible way that this is not a slam-dunk KEEP per GNG (multiple, independently published pieces of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the topic) is on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, as 66.9K Google hits for the exact phrase "masturbate-a-thon" will attest. Passes GNG, plain and simple, no need for normative debates over whether the topic is sufficiently edifying for inclusion, which are not germane. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found this AfD hilarious so I gave it a shot. Google managed to come up with some books (some of which are not written in English), journal mentions and several news items about these events. I think it passes GNG per Carrite. Also, Wikipedia is not a convent. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Widely covered across multiple continents. --Michig (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment several of the keep votes seem to believe this is a generic term. The current article lede says "From 1998 to 2003, the Masturbate-a-thon raised around $25,000 for women’s health initiatives and HIV prevention". Power~enwiki (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the consensus, I feel it should be Merged into National Masturbation Month, which discusses the same thing, with a less gimmick-y name. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I believe it meets wikipedias general notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.134.177 (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per research by Carrite, above. Sagecandor (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe in a hands on approach to in-depth topics here at AFD... Carrite (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge into National Masturbation Month. There's actually not a lot to support the current article as a stand alone, it just seems to be one of many different names for this kind of event. The sources are just as often use "wank week" or "masturbation contest," and only mention "masturbate-a-thon" in passing. Also, much of the coverage isn't really in depth, most of the sources are more like event announcements. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as nom, after the discussion so far, I currently support a merge with National Masturbation Day to a general page on these types of events. None of the individual events referenced appear to be notable as events, but this seems to notable as a general term. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. Sole Keep vote seems to be making the common but erroneous assumption that fame and or tenure = notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Piquero[edit]

Minerva Piquero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested ProD. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Was unable to find sufficient coverage in WP:RS. Sourcing in article not sufficient in depth or breadth to establish notability. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep weather presenter in a major channel for 14 years.Pacostein (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete She doesn't make the grade but it's surprising that after 14 years as the weather reporter for a national channel there aren't more sources. Domdeparis (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2017 (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.

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 delete - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentina (drag queen) (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 07:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Bo'nina Brown[edit]

Nina Bo'nina Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of relevance. Other queens on the show have also had their pages deleted for lack of relevance. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid Betty, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatianna (drag queen), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Barry (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Barry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentina (drag queen), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Velour. Most of the points still hold up. It's a minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim to notability is having been a contestant on a reality show. I'd understand if she won the season, the winners tend to have more claims to notability but in this case, she hasn't won. Oath2order (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9) Oath2order (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2017 (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.

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 Delete per the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentina (drag queen) (2nd nomination). Hut 8.5 21:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Taylor[edit]

Trinity Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of relevance. Other queens on the show have also had their pages deleted for lack of relevance. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid Betty, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatianna (drag queen), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Barry (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Barry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valentina (drag queen), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasha Velour. Most of the points still hold up. It's a minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person whose primary claim to notability is having been a contestant on a reality show. I'd understand if she won the season, the winners tend to have more claims to notability but in this case, she hasn't won. Oath2order (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Gilani[edit]

Adele Gilani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails every single criterion in WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Lousy, weak sources that do not come within a million miles of any kind of notability. I also just removed about six sources that were actually from Youtube, but were labelled as being published by someone else to hide their origin. My guess is that this is a professionally written promo piece. I have a clear sense that there is zero notability.104.163.153.14 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG. Detailed piece in NYTimes plus several other references to reliable sources. Antonioatrylia (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References should be considered in context. The NYT wedding section is not a source of serious critical attention for an artist. It is celebrity gossip. Mduvekot (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient in-depth, multiple, independent sources to give notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2017 (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.

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Twice relisted with the sole vote being delete. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Khan (International Broadcaster)[edit]

Zain Khan (International Broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

some cited sources are not reliable. reliable ones doesn't mention the subject. his tweets were embedded in some reliable sources which doesn't makes him notable. fails WP:GNG Saqib (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. References are also not in context.Sulaimandaud (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. References are also not in context. Sulaimandaud (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. czar 16:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanzade Alaeddin Bey Effendi[edit]

Sultanzade Alaeddin Bey Effendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject isn't notable at all. The article only includes details about how his mother married his father and when and where the child was born. As everyone knows notability isn't inherited, so I think this article is absolutely eligible for deletion. Keivan.f^Talk 08:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I tried a few alternate spellings and couldn't find any useful references to the individual. Perhaps there would be better results using yet another spelling, I'm not sure. Given this, I think it fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- So what makes him notable? There is nothing in the article, except NN genealogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2017 (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.

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 delete. czar 16:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Thakur[edit]

Karan Thakur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable actor. Seems to have been an important role in one film but the notability of the film is also questionable. The article listed a number of tv serials but I can't find a single reliable source to support his role in any of them. A Google news search for "Karan Thakur" or "Karhan Dev" found nothing that establishes notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Most of the serials he acted in, are episode based appearances. CID is crime investigation drama with a different case in every episode, and Savadhan India is similar, but it is based on real life cases. The article has a lot of WP:WEASEL words. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, From last few years actor Karan Thakur has appeared in various Tv Shows and web series in Prominent characters. The News articles published in National news paper are proof of the same. Actorsofindia (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like a promotional article with nothing notable. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2017 (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.

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. This was not an easy call since both sides are looking at the same things and coming to sharply different conclusions. And FTR I find these kinds of articles an unfortunate symptom of Wikipedia's pervasive WP:RECENTISM bias. But my job here is to interpret consensus, and I think that a compelling case has been made that there has been coverage that extended well beyond the immediate aftermath of the incident which leads me to call this a Keep. But even if I gave more credence to the deletionist interpretation of the sourcing I think at worst this would be a no-consensus which would still default to keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers[edit]

2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

After waiting several months following the incident, it can safely be determined this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Here we have a terrorist attack (which does not equal automatic notability) that received an expected wave of news coverage between 5 October - 7 October 2016 but had no sustained attention or WP:LASTING impact. Please keep in mind WP:OSE is not a keep rationale and that these events, tragic as they are, have notability guidelines. I also would be open to a redirect upon review of other editors. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom is incorrect in asserting that "wave of news coverage between 5 October - 7 October 2016 but had no sustained attention or WP:LASTING impact." and should probably strike that assertion. Coverage has, in fact, been ongoing in both Flemish and Franco-Belgiun press, in Senegal and perhaps elsewhere. A WP:BEFORE search would have turned this ongoing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Readers, please do not be fooled by this statement. The "ongoing" coverage he is referring to is the trial and a list of dozens of terrorist attacks that were "under-reported". The trial is WP:ROUTINE for any solved crime and the list does not establish a WP:LASTING impact. Despite asking several times, Gregory simply ignores my requests for the long-term impact of this attack. Most likely, because there isn't any, thusly the article should be deleted or redirected.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• [[WP:NCRIME]S are deemed notable largely on the basis of being "high-profile criminal acts," as evidenced by national and international news coverage. As a terrorist attack it has a cumulative impact as part of a pattern of of attacks in Category:Islamic terrorism in Belgium that shapes policy in Belgium and Europe. Also note that few knifing get into the newspaper at all, certainly not national and international coverage. This one is WP notable because it has had such coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cumulative impact"? Now you are depending on other terrorist attacks to determine the notability of this one. Really? I could say more but I do not want to be accused of WP:BLUDGEON again for making too good of a point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this will have a lasting impact upon Brussels, Islamic people in Belgium, police policy, Belgian laws, and so on. It has created enough movement that it deserves to be referred to and described to future students of those subjects. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Richardcavell Read WP:CRYSTALBALL. The attack is eight months old so please explain the "impact" you mention and the so-called "movement". It received coverage for two days, that's it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is absolutely false that coverage was limited to two days! There has been continuous coverage and it continues as as recently as June 2017. XavierItzm (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.- MrX 13:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The references included in the article show its notability, that this incident was widely reported and regarded as a "terror" attack. OtterAM (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OtterAM read WP:NOTNEWS. This article had no sustained coverage. And being regarded as a terror attack does not contribute to notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Slick, You appear to misunderstand. The thing to do when an article on a significant incident needs better sourcing is to tag for "remimprove" or to source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per lasting impact. Per sources. Refering to NOTNEWS is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay BabbaQ this is getting a little ridiculous. How is NOTNEWS now an irrelevant policy? And what was the lasting impact, may I ask? Two days of news coverage? You are simply ignoring my policy-based rationale to keep an unnotable article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a POV statement of yours. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BabbaQ care to answer the questions I brought up? Or are they somehow "POV" too?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that there has, in fact, been ongoing coverage in the Belgian press as this case moves towards trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory and what about that coverage is not routine? Of course when a criminal is captured alive there will be a trial. Where is the WP:LASTING impact? How is this still not a WP:NOTNEWS event? I find it very troubling all those in favor of keep completely disregard the policies stating why this article is unnotable for their own take on notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, however, that article met WP:GEOSCOPE when it was nominated, and that meeting GEOSCOPE is not routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• E.M.Gregory looks like I need to quote the policy since you clearly need help understanding it: "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article". Again, I ask you, as I have asked others, what is the long-term impact of this event? Was there any significant policy, major riots, or something similar as a direct result of this attack? Please do not say the trial or Trump's list are examples of "long-term" impact or I can no longer take you seriously.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It met WP:GEOSCOPE when you found it. Please read my comments and WP:N(E) more carefully and beward WP:BLUDGEON as we allow time and other editors to reach consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess that is your way of saying "I cannot determine the long term impact but I'll throw in WP:BLUDGEON because he is asking too many legitimate questions for my liking". Thanks, anyways.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is WP:NOTNEWS at its purest. Here was the state of the article before this AfD, which has been the state since last year. As you can see, it is literally just a sample of the news stories mentioning the incident, all just after the attack. Since this AfD, a few more sources about the trial have been added. Of course, every (solved) crime has a trial; that does not mean anything. I don't see any indication of any WP:LASTING significance of this event. I don't see any laws which were changed, any political upheavals or anything of that sort. There is already a main page: Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), where this event is mentioned along with all the others.

  Looking at Google search restricted to the past few months, the only mention I found of this incident is a long list put out by the Trump administration, which alleged that the event was not covered by the media. There is no discussion of this event itself in these sources; just a response to Trump admin's claim that it was not covered. The BBC and NPR both said that the claims of "no coverage" aren't true. Politifact also rated these claims as false.

  Thus, this page should be redirected to the list page, or deleted. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In other words, months after this attack occurred, Trump's statement brought it back to international attention causing CNN, NPR, BBC, NYTimes, and several other leading international media to revisit this story. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's of course hilarious, but completely expected, that you would add those links to try to demonstrate notability. These links aren't about the attacks (they aren't discussed at all), but about the claim that the incidents in this (arbitrary) list of 78 attacks weren't covered. The news organizations just linked to their own past coverage of the attacks (at the time they occurred) to counter Trump's claim. According to you, the totality of the "impact" of this attack is the inclusion in a list of attacks in support of a false claim by the Trump administration? We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The situation is also hilarious in that if one accepts Trump's claim as true, then this event wasn't covered in the media, and thus should not have a WP page per WP:GNG. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly the wave of coverage in February 2017 supports notability. Trump's assertion was that this and other terrorist attacks had been under-reported by the media. The BBC, NPR, CNN, The Guardian, the BBC and many other major media rushed to demonstrate how thoroughly they had covered this attack, not only proving that Trump had made a false assertion, but also proving that this attack did in fact receive major international coverage when it occurred. To which we can add the examples of WIDESPREAD, LASTING coverage sparked by Trump. All of this in addition to ongoing national coverage in Belgium.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikiepdia is not a news site, and this is an example of news reporting on Wikipeida. This is an event which took place got some usual and expected news coverage when and only when it happened this has not carried beyond the expected block of news coverage, this is just another general news event, and does not go beyond this. Sport and politics (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• False assertion by editor who appears not to have looked at the sourcing now on the page. (an editor who has just carried oft a series of mass deletions at Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redact: Adding to my comment, Sport and Politics wrote that this attack "got some usual and expected news coverage when and only when it happened" repeating Nom's assertion and demonstrating that Sport and Politics had not looked at the sources on the page where WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is shown.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Strong personal comments which are unfounded, comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Sport and politics (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Editor either read the page and made a deliberate misstatement of fact here, or made a false assertion based on a page he had not read.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Attributing motive and actions which are incorrect falls squarely in that category. again focus on the contributions not the contributor, if you wish to keep discussing this please feel free to do so hereSport and politics (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You are allowed to strike the false information in your comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noticed this editors mass deletion at 2016 Hanover stabbing, with a highly problematic edit summary. Sport and politics, we all have opinions and we all make mistakes, but you need to be more careful about verifying the assertions you make.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEYMANN I have expanded the article to include coverage of this attack in the months since it happened. Note' that the case has not yet gone to trial, and that this is still quite a recent event. Nevertheless, sources now meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA: WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Today's headlines, My French being what it is, I would appreciate it if a fluent reader would look at this article in today's La Capitale, 12 Juin 2017 , Schaerbeek: deux policiers citent directement Hicham Diop devant le tribunal, [9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• New charges filed 12 June 2017 against Hicham Diop: making death threats against police holding him in custody. Story ran in Belgian, French and Senagalese news media. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is relevant for a summary of the perpetrator but is not helpful with determining the notability of this stabbing attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Demonstrates the WP:GEOSCOPE of the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Continued coverage of what? This additional charge is trivial at best and completely unrelated to the stabbing, other than the fact the same perp committed the act. And, worse still, it neglects the more important matter, WP:LASTING impact. Your "cumulative impact" argument does not fulfill any point of that policy I'm (or anyone else is) aware of and incorrectly asserts that these types of events do not need independent notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I count 17 comments from EMG and 13 comments from TGS in this AfD. Can you two give it a rest? You aren't going to convince each other, and nobody else is going to read your comments anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was unclear; the charge of making a death threat against police officers was just filed, but the threats were spoken last year, just after he attacked one set of officers, another set of officers responded and were taking him to the police station when he threatened them with death. All in the context of ISIS encouraging sympathizers to make police targets of the jihad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- despite recent article changes, this is still an event of no lasting significance or societal impact. The coverage is rather routine; the subject is not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage is certainly not routine; "routine" big-city knife attacks get no coverage at all. this one has had almost a year of international coverage. Because police accuse perp (who is still awaiting trail) of Islamist terrorism? Very probably. Point is, we follow the BBC, DW, AFP, and the Belgian and Senegalese press. When they deem it notable by continuing to covering it, that's what passes WP:GNG. Not our personal opinions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? No. This event has been widely covered by WP:RS worldwide and content continues to be added. There is no sound rationale for deletion, and if this were deleted for reasons of being considered "minor" (in the eyes of the deleter), then about 1/2 of the Wikipedia, with articles with less sources and less edits, would have to be deleted too, for consistency. As the latter is unlikely to happen, the deletion of this page and not of the others would show clear bias/censorship by the deleters. XavierItzm (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Honest question XavierItzm: Do you copy and paste your response for every "keep" vote you make? That's a very good sign that you hardly analyze the article your commenting on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't make this stuff up. [10] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AGF, WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheGracefulSlick. Do you have an objection to my argument? I think it is quite a powerful argument. Now, if you don't have a specific objection to my argument, perhaps that's a very good sign that you hardly analyze the comment you're commenting on? Thanks in advance for your response. XavierItzm (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as of WP:NOTE. -- Rævhuld (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete seems like a minor incident compared to more major attacks.173.62.245.68 (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — 173.62.245.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• delete Seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. Might be important in a French or Flemish version of Wilipedia, but not English. That said, a similar article, 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers should be considered for deletion as well.63.160.158.184 (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)— 63.160.158.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

delete This is a WP:NOTNEWS event that has not shown any notable impacts. The article in question does not deem encyclopedic relevance or necessity as per wiki standards. Bebfire (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing editor that there is a sockpuppet investigation on the 3 editors just above Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheGracefulSlick. The investigation is open, I may be incorrect, but I thought I should mention it here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that coverage continues, including an interesting analysis published today by Christopher Dickey who places this attack within a pattern of jihadist attacks in Europe consisting of "many small incidents and thwarted ones, then suddenly one or two high-casualty attacks" [11]. This is precisely how we build Wikipedia, by having articles on incidents, events, and crimes to which we can link when buildingarticles describing broader phenomena. Note also that the assertions by Nom and others that coverage has ceased is simply untrue. And that the trial is still to come.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if your article is written in this style: [when] [who] [what] [where] as in this lede sentence On 5 October 2016, three police officers were attacked by a man wielding a machete in the Schaerbeek neighborhood of Brussels, Belgium. most likely the article falls under WP:NOTNEWS. There are always exceptions - usually events that we can expect to have a lasting and significant impact. Some things will likely be written about in books and academic papers like the Congressional Baseball shooting or the Beltway Sniper. If you ask yourself "Do I think that in the future an entire book could be written about this event, or that this event will have a lasting influence" and the answer is "Yes" then it may fall under the WP:NOTNEWS exceptions. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean it an event is unimportant, only that it should not be the subject of a standalone article. There must be an article that would be a suitable for adding this information. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]