< 5 November	7 November >

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. Or at least no consensus, depending how one assesses the arguments, but clearly no consensus to delete. Sandstein 11:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017 Brussels attack[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Wikipedia is not news and is not a directory for every conceivable piece of information possible. I'll elaborate further:

The fact the same story was repeated for a few days in late June will certainly be applied by !voters here. However, as our guideline for events states: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". So now we know, based on policy, crimes can be considered as "routine kinds of news events" and even wide news reports are not enough alone.

Following along, there is no indication of "enduring significance". Not only is it required here, it is necessary for WP:LASTING and a wide impact for WP:GEOSCOPE. Procedures following the incident were immediate, routine, and short-lived. No major damage, political ramifications, societal impact, anything of enduring significance came from this. Of course, this had a pontential to be devasting and perhaps then notable but we do not credit potential notability.

The incident lacks in-depth coverage, instead it relies on narrative reports. Please do not present some news report that briefly mentions this in one sentence as a part of a "trend" because "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing". And, really, you would only be providing proof that the trend, not the incident, is notable.

Editors can propose a merge if they wish but I do not advocate for it. Such an article, in this state, isn't fitting to merge. The "background" just mentions actual notable (but unrelated) attacks, and too much trivia, as well as speculative content is included but little substance for an encyclopedic article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title should be moved to something like 2017 Brussels Central Station failed bombing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Bombing the Brussels Central Station, a major rail station (plus, in this case, a Victor Horta design) is hardly ROUTINE, as evidenced by the fact that on the other side of the world, the Washington Post ran 2 reported stories on this incident, the New York Times ran 2 and the Wall Street Journal ran 3 stories - none wire service, all reported. In each of these newspapers, the 2nd or 3rd story was an IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS of the context of this bombing, including discussion of the fact that the bomber was an enthusiastic but untrained an incompetent jihadist with Islamist ideological commitments and sympathies. The analysis, as per Post, Times and Journal, is that because it is losing territory, ISIS can no longer train jihadis nor direct big operations from the Middle East. Therefore, they encourage volunteerism. WP:HEYMANN now added including a number of things Nom missed WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that
Weak Keep. To determine whether suicide bombings by Molenbeek residents will have a long term societal impact requires quite a bit of CRYSTALBALLING - it isn't obvious they will or will not. This incident received at the time copious international coverage. It is also being mentioned in the subsequent months - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. At this point in time we cannot rule out that coverage will continue.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz yes we can rule it out because working with something we don't have is crystal balling. None of those sources discussed the incident beyond a passing mention and in fact were about trends or other unrelated attacks; my nom statement already explained why that needs to be avoided. Your comment seems to rely on a philosophy: "well, we can't identify any impact or future coverage yet so let's keep it" which is hugely illogical.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read links before dismissing them as "passing mentions," this AFP story cited by Icewhiz: Islamic State claims Brussels stabbing attack: "In June a man who tried to bomb a Brussels train station was shot dead by a soldier. Belgian authorities identified the man in that incident as a 36-year-old Moroccan national with the initials O.Z., while local media named him as Oussama Zariouh. No one was injured in the foiled attack at Brussels Central station but officials said the consequences could have been severe had the bomb, full of nails and gas canisters, detonated properly. The man shouted “Allahu akbar” during the attack and prosecutors said he had sympathies for IS. Police found explosive materials in a June raid on the home of the suspect in Molenbeek, a Brussels district which has been linked to recent deadly terror plots in France and Belgium. Also Note this 25 August article Machete-wielding man shot dead in Brussels terror attack after attacking soldiers about the August 2017 Brussels attack, which has 5 (short) paragraphs about this June attack. Quite a bit of the coverage in recent months has been more than a "passing mention," and much of it has been WP:INDEPTH analysis, including two scholarly papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The US comments about this event are mainly about the broader context, rather than about this event, to that extent they are mainly making arguments about a 'change in direction' by ISIS. It is difficult for me to logically square that with the fairly emphatic statements from Brussels authorities that NO known connection exists in this case between the perp and ISIS. To that extent I think the info would be better merged somewhere, not sure where. Pincrete (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:HEYMANN I have now added 2 academic articles to the page. in addition to a number of news articles. Nom's assertion that coverage was limited to "the same story was repeated for a few days in late June" is absolutely wrong. As is Nom's interpretation of WP:LASTING. While it is true that an event with LASTING impact "is likely to be notable." and that as per WP:EVENTCRITERIA: "Events are probably notable if... they have a significant lasting effect." It is equally true that as per WP:LASTING that: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." This bombing of a major European train station meets WP:INDEPTH WP:COVERAGE, WP:PERSISTENCE (although it only happened three months ago,) and WP:DIVERSE - the standards that actually apply to a high profile crime that just happened. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per E.M Gregorys improvements. Also per plenty of other good third party sources. Lasting effects can not be proven as of this date. This bombing meets WP:INDEPTH.BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - If anyone still cares, the recent "expansion" by Gregory is, as usual, filled with synth. I have just begun to look at this "expansion" and already found synth here. More likely to follow. I hope editors remain diligent and avoid being fooled by news commentary and passing mentions being played off as in-depth sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renard calls Zariouh "the new face of jihad in Europe" (1st paragraph) because he fits the model of the “homegrown terrorist fighters (HTF)" to whom Renard is directing concern in this article [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never touched the "new face of Jihad" comment but, as I explained here, Zariouh is never mentioned in the paragraph you partially and misleadingly quoted. Instead of accepting that, you reinserted the misrepresented text and claimed I never read the piece. Both disruptive and both just dishonest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As currently written, this is a significant event. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes can you reassess your opinion? "As currently written", the article is hampered by synth and passing mentions that can trick editors into believing the incident was more significant and persistent than it really was. Pincrete and I managed to remove a great deal of it but some remains, as evident by the tags.

NOTE: This discussion was closed on June 5 when the nominator withdrew the nomination. However, closure was inappropriate because there was a !vote to delete. I am reopening the discussion and relisting as of today. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean November 5? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M. Gregory. Mentioned in media around the world. Undeniably notable event --- much more for its symbolic significance than for any damage or casualties. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Spinner can you explain what you mean by symbolism? Are you referring to the trend of ISIS-inspired terrorism? I hope not because that would make the trend notable, not this event. Being widely reported alone isn't enough for notability according to WP:EVENTCRIT and some of the synth has been cleaned up so the article may need a second glance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick The article contains 36 inline cites, but it may as well be 36,000, since every media outlet in the world mentioned it, with the inescapable conclusion that it symbolized, in one way or another, the "lone wolf" threat that is embedded within our society. The fact that the plan, such as it was, had, indeed, been put into effect and, were it not for the amateurishness and incompetence of the perpetrator, a key transportation hub in the heart of the European Union would have become a scene of carnage, is what engendered the resulting media coverage and justifies the existence of the article which elucidates the details of the case. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator, incident without lasting impact. Being a Belgian living near Brussels, who regularly passes through the Central Station area, I can tell you that this incident did not receive an exceptional amount of coverage in our national media.T v x1 15:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too early to establish lasting impact. We don't go after POV but guidelines. BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT which states "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. EVENTCRIT also states "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)". At most this should be included at our existing article, Terrorist activity in Belgium. AusLondonder (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Please disregard the votes from some editors above. Per WP:NOTAVOTE it is the quality, not quantity of the argument that matters, of course. AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Why is this article being deleted? It is a well written article, about an attempted bombing of a major architectural monument, a major transit hub in a major European city. Clearly this is a notable event, and it is shown to have been a major even by the "references" section which includes a great deal of serious journalism in well-known publications. The article should certainly be kept.Strandvue (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And also because it is clearly silly to ask for "lasting, historical significance" in an event that has just happened. And because the attempted mass murder and destruction of Central Station is not a "water cooler story." Arguments of this type are just plain silly!18:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Failed terror attack in which nobody was killed or injured with the exception of the perpetrator. Even if it is supposedly "clearly silly" to ask for a WP:LASTING significance in an attack that "just happened" (it was actually five months ago) it is extremely difficult to see how this incident passes the WP:10YT. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has an abundance of sources and information detailing many aspects of notability of this attack. The failure of this attack is not relevant to notability as some users claim as there is a clear precedence of sometimes lengthy articles about failed attempted terrorist bombings, see the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt, 2010 Stockholm bombings, 21 July 2005 London bombings, 2007 London car bombs etc. User2534 (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep- meets wp:gng and wp:geoscope. the other criteria listed were designed to weed out watercooler fake news, not terrorist attacks in the central transport hub of europe's capital city. if a terror attack in Brussels isnt worth a wiki entry, then what is? XavierItzm (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Europe does not have a capital city!Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, doesn't matter. This rationale literally states valid policies don't count because..."I said so". Some editors will say just about anything.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per E.M gregory. WP:NOTNEWS is about routinely reported events, not events reported in the news. Something lasting means it is notable, but This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Galobtter (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EM Gregory. Continued coverage and discussion, including in academic sources indicates notability and not just routine WP:NOTNEWS level of coverage. If the nominator's concerns on SYNTH are those currently discussed at the article talk page (the appropriate place to discuss such issues), it seems like a honest mistake on EM Gregory's part in which they confused two different ISIS-affiliated outlets, and not something that merits wholesale deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any rationale that is literally based on "per E.M.Gregory" has the strong sense of parody. AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No the SYNTH is not mainly about "two different ISIS-affiliated outlets", there is an RfC on talk addressing some of the synth concerns. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to everybody Until we finally get around to rewriting AfD rules to reflect reality, please pour as much benzine ont he blaze as possible by soliciting closing admins to your POV and dropping bombs every where. Remember "No Consensus" is a valid closing decision and anything that requires a DNTR tag like at the top has a strong likelihood of ending up that way, so save breath of anythign that isn't constructed. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Out of protest and a desire to be as disruptful as possible I won't make an original rationale. Per Xavier will do, sans the geopolitical error. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How thoughtful and constructive. Thanks for your input. Are you new? I'm guessing you haven't taken the time to read WP:PERX? AusLondonder (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being humorous?, I'm not so sure. PERX is an essay, not policy. And as for the new thing I've attended 900 Afds. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:53, 14 November 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 and redirect to Rocket (disambiguation)#Bands. Sandstein 20:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket (band)[edit]

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

Article was created in 2007 as promotional material by someone associated with this (all-female) band. Since 2009, it has had zero content other than a one-sentence introduction. Never signed to a major label, haven't released anything in eleven years, and no third-party coverage; an AllMusic entry (without biography) does not automatically establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A couple of pieces of coverage found, but not much else: [7], [8]. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The page has been repeatedly replaced with content about another band with a similar name, including after this AFD has started, so please check the page history to make sure the correct topic is being discussed. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did just that prior to nom. A male band had annexed the page for some time and was reverted back yesterday by a member of the female band, which brought the article to my attention for the first time. I saw just now the recent activity by an anon trying to change it back, but the article in discussion is about the female band. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Rocket (disambiguation) to prevent re-creation. There needs to be a more detailed disambiguator than "band" for any band of this name. The band that appeared on The Next Great American Band is not notable, as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 11 November 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 keep. Nominator blocked for sock-puppetry, and all !votes are to keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cormack[edit]

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

No sources in the article text to establish notability or accuracy. This is also similar on his "notable books" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormieSwarmie (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per a WP:BEFORE search, and per WP:AUTHOR, I also note several authority control listings, always a good sign. (note, I removed an incorrect posting of this AfD on another existing AfD). Dysklyver 23:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 23:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. Any author with that number of printings and translations into that many languages is automatically notable. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Removed all promotional and unsourced content. His nonfiction books are far more notable than The Story of Egmo (which itself ought to be merged with this article) and have indeed been translated. However, no evidence of awards or sales, nor any third-party coverage of author or reviews of his books. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Found evidence of two foreign language editions, no proof of sales figures or animation award. Will give the benefit of the doubt here. Rogermx (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - NormieSwarmie, who opened this AFD, has been blocked for sock-puppetry. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 8 November 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. Sandstein 20:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Hoffman[edit]

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

BLP without external references Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an alternative-medicine talk-show host; there isn't nearly enough coverage to meet WP:BLPFRINGE or to avoid promotional concerns. The "uncited" material is almost certainly based on his own website, which is a primary source. I believe this is about a different doctor of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 11 November 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Joe (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Samuel Decosta Higgins[edit]

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

BLP with unreferenced assertion that he is notable as the first African American Director of the Department of Surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this source he's the William Stewart Halsted Professor at Johns Hopkins, so he passes WP:PROF#C5. He also has highly cited publications in Google scholar, enough for #C1. The article does say he is the first African-American director, but (contrary to what the nomination says) does not claim that he is notable for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per David Eppstein. Galobtter (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear pass of WP:PROF based on the named professorship and highly cited papers. – Joe (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as named chair and per recent article improvements; an acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to keep now there is an independent source. BLP policies apply to notable professor, just as to other people. Rathfelder (talk) 08:20, 9 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rabiul Alam Biplob[edit]

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

The subject shows no reason or signs for notability. Editor of a blog that is not notable. Only one RS is cited and that is the Daily Ittefaq. I am sure he is a good journalist but I do not believe he meets notability guidelines for BLP Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears this is an autobiography, created by an user with the same name and has not edited outside of this article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I accepted this at AFC, ongoing proof of my worthlessness ProgrammingGeek^talktome 18:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything on him really. Galobtter (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local journalist didn't meet basic WP:GNG nor specific WP:JOURNALIST. The bundled refs in lead just confirm he is journalist. This article has also been declined many times at AFC, nonetheless it got its way here. — Ammarpad (talk) 20:36, 10 November 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 Michael Yeung Ming-cheung. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yeung Ming-cheung controversies[edit]

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

Listed this at BLPN, but since I've gotten no response there, I'm taking it to AfD because I think its worth discussing whether or not this should be deleted as a POV-fork and a BLP violation. It is currently simply a collection of controversies involving one Chinese Catholic bishop, Michael Yeung Ming-cheung. It only presents negative information, and as such is completely opposed to NPOV as required by the BLP policy. Take your pick as to whether or not it should be deleted under WP:DEL5 or WP:DEL9, but in my mind, it meets both criteria for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The Catholic bishop in Hong Kong has been at the center of some strong controversies, with some dating back to 2010. Some of the controversies have even been reported by English-language media outside of Hong Kong. I wrote the Chinese version of the article over at Chinese Wikipedia, and I have also included information that are not negative as well. I will translate as soon as I can. If we delete this due to a supposed BLP violation (even when there are multiple, independent, reliable sources), it will result in a slant that is overtly positive, and not neutral in its own ways. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And on en.wiki we handle it by addressing the situation in the article about the subject with appropriate weighting given to all topics as reported by reliable sourcing, not by having a separate page only for scandals. How zh.wiki chooses to handle the issue is irrelevant to en.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying, User:TonyBallioni. I did not say "ZH wiki does this, so we should do it as well". I merely said I will translate what was written on ZH wiki's corresponding page to this page. Nor am I advocating we change the way we do things here as well. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently roughly 5x the size of his actual biography at ~26k byte compared to ~5k bytes. There is no possible way that adding some positive commentary in a negative POV-fork could make it comply with the BLP policy. This is a POV fork involving a BLP and should not exist separate from the main article, and it certainly all shouldn't be merged or restored to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, the fact remains that this guy has stirred up a lot of controversy over the past 7-8 years in Hong Kong, and the controversies are well documented by press. It's not BLP non-compliant, in my opinion, if the guy has done bad things. I understand we are not here to smear, but we are also not here to whitewash or glorify. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I also point to a similar situation over at Pat Robertson controversies. As of now, it stands at ~70k bytes, compared to ~58k bytes for the main Pat Robertson page. That's an example that we have done negative POV-fork before (that page was created a decade ago, and it has survived a discussion similar to this one). I'm not even counting the ones we did for John Kerry, Hillary Clinton (there's an entire category for it). Deleting this page, in my opinion, will result in an overtly positive POV for this Catholic bishop, which will be totally incompatible with the controversies he has stirred up over the years. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 07:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant difference between major controversies involving former US presidential candidates and controversies involving a bishop of a minority religious group in a region. I actually think the Pat Robertson controversies page needs to be looked at as well to see if it should be deleted or merged, and thank you for bringing it up. There is no attempt to whitewash here. The content can be placed in the main biography if it meets our BLP requirements for proper weighting per NPOV. It cannot have its own article that will not be monitored by anyone to simply serve as a webhost for a laundry list of controversies with excessive detail. That is a gross violation of the BLP policy and the NPOV policy. Since you split this from the main article after adding it there, we have no need to keep the history or the POV redirect. We can selectively restore the content to the main article once consensus is reached as to what is appropriate and won't violate the BLP policy and NPOV. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Michael Yeung Ming-cheung. This article just has a sub-heading on controversies, but this section of this article does not say much - it might be easier to navigate Wikipedia if the article on controversies this figure has generated were merged with this article. Vorbee (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The content was split from the article, so it is already in its history, so a selective restoration could take place without the need to keep the article history here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge w/ history merge, but delete this page after the fact , no comment on actual content. Splitting off a controversy section on an article that short was absolutely unnecessary and violates BLP. The content itself doesn't (at least at first blush), but just calling it out by itself in a separate article is extremely poor form and should not be done unless WP:SIZE necessitates it. So merge the content back with history, and then delete this, as the redirect is not helpful. --MASEM (t) 15:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michael Yeung Ming-cheung in drastically-reduced form. This article has serious BLP issues as noted above and many of the "controversies" are either mere statements of Catholic doctrine, rumors, or actually statements made by his predecessor in the position. Pointing to Pat Robertson is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and not relevant. Even if it were, Robertson is easily distinguished from Bishop Yeung. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we can merge in a way that will not result in whitewashing of the many, many controversies this man has faced, I will be open to it. I will oppose, however, deletion without merger. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fine with a history only merger along the lines of what Masem suggested, and then working towards consensus as to what we should restore. Currently some of this stuff is WP:COATRACK and a myriad of other BLP violations. We also tend away from using "controversy" headings in article. Including criticism is fine, but wholesale restoring a criticism section that is 5x the length of the current article without consensus as to what specifically should be merged is not in line with the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am willing to work towards consensus on what is restored, but that should happen as soon as humanly possible. Any delays will degrade the credibility of Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this good-faith fork. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively. There are some COATRACK and ATTACK aspects to this article; no doubt from those with a different political POV. This particularly applies to issues that relate, not to him but his predecessor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 12 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiltern Badminton Club[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Lacks GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. At the very least, a prod. No notability established, and I doubt it ever could be established. South Nashua (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Delete Scratch that. Prod was probably the best route here. South Nashua (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The related page Reading Badminton Association should probably go through AfD as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a web host for clubs. See WP:Alternate outlets. Unscintillating (talk) 21:45, 12 November 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. Speedy deleted by Boing! said Zebedee, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nature exposure sufficiency insufficiency[edit]

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

This is a work of WP:SYN about which there is basically one source, available full text here, which is:

a) published in Medical Hypotheses, a ~~non-peer-reviewed~~ journal that we generally avoid, except to make statements like "X wrote Y";
b) the first source in this WP page, and this WP page basically replicates that paper, even down to following its sourcing and the order in which sources are used; and
c) authored Salvatore B. Durante and another person.

This WP page was created by Sdurante07 who has been spamming wikilinks to this page, and refspam to the Medical Hypotheses article, in many other articles, which is how I became aware of this. It appears to me that this page in WP is being abused to try to popularize a pet/net theory, and this is not what WP is for. (There are no refs in Pubmed about this.) This page is not a Wikipedia article and should be deleted.--Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC) (correction Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have read this article several times over the last few hours with increasing bewilderment. As per the nominator, it appears to a pet theory and at best original research. It seems to be a variant on alternative therapy involving nature and signally fails WP:MEDRS. Wholly non-encyclopaedic. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with the above. Even Google Scholar, the most likely to include non-reputable sources and citations, shows only the single source from Durante with no citations with the term "Nature exposure sufficiency". I would have considered a redirect had it had some minor secondary discussion that fell within Nature deficit disorder, but this looks more like a pet theory issue rather than just similar terminology overlap for the time being. If this term gets more attention, it'll show up in citations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted, WP:G7, at request of original author. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 8 November 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, as per previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimetsu no yaiba). I made it a redirect to Weekly Shōnen Jump to avoid red links. fish&karate 15:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba[edit]

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

Search for reliable sources only turns up passing mentions, but nothing that would pass WP:NBOOK. This is a matter of WP:TOOSOON. Prod disputed on the bases that other articles exists. —Farix (t | c) 21:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My real concern is not how notable Kimetsu no Yaiba itself is but how haphazardly notability is applied in manga pages, especially since there are tons of manga with even less notability that have Wikipedia pages that are completely unchallenged. Just within Weekly Shonen Jump, here are the list of manga that I challenge anyone to argue is more notable than Kimetsu no Yaiba:

- Akaboshi: Ibun Suikoden

Kimetsu no Yaiba's Wikipedia article is immediately put to deletion within an hour of creation, while all of these stand for 5+ years in some cases. I would especially emphasize Akaboshi: Ibun Suikoden, which is a failed manga that had poor sales, lasted 3 volumes before being axed and has absolutely no notability in any way. Yet since Farix has edited the page without proposing deletion, I presume it means that he or she believes it is notable in a way that Kimetsu no Yaiba isn't.

I will finally still argue that Kimetsu no Yaiba is notable. By its official Japanese twitter page, it has sold 1.5 million copies [9] and is a star in the most popular manga anthology in the world with Japanese media coverage and buzz. If consistent English media coverage is a precursor to notability, we should take down possibly half the pages on here. Thriceplus (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Only one notable source (Anime News Network), and that's only a mention of its English-translation release and a blurb by Viz Media. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, just delete this. I'm getting too old to be wasting my time debating whether a manga I don't really even read has any notability by some arcane Wikipedia rules. If this page violates the notability rule, so be it. My only hope is that overlords like Farix and other users here apply this rule uniformly and not cherry pick specific situations. I'm hoping to see Farix either propose to delete the other articles I brought up above or write an impassioned defense on their notability. Thriceplus (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are other articles that have notability problems has nothing to do with this one. In fact, I've tagged most of those articles for having notability problems and even WP:PRODded one for deletion. I just didn't have the time to do a search for sources at the time and then forgot about them. —Farix (t | c) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already said I'm fine with the deletion of this article. Is it too much to ask for consistency in the application of rules for the most active and controlling users on Wikipedia? And your defense is laughable. For someone that made 6 different edits to Akaboshi: Ibun Suikoden across a period of 7 years between 2009 and 2016, I find it hard to believe you somehow missed the fact that the article is completely not notable. And I'm curious about the fact that you proposed one of these articles for deletion and yet it stands. What is the defense used by that article to avoid deletion that somehow doesn't apply to this article? Thriceplus (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is actually the second nomination for this page. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimetsu no yaiba. No improvements done since then, possible speedy delete? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the primary contributor has already supported deletion, should the article now be tagged for speedy deletion under G7? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so, the closing admin also should mark this as the second nomination of said article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And tagged. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:12, 9 November 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. Sandstein 20:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Aleeha[edit]

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

cited sources are not RS. fails to meet WP:JOURNALIST Saqib (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is sufficient sources to keep this on Wikipedia. Please check.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Abu Aleeha is also a film director and producer, directing Arifa, working with notable actors of Pakistan.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cited sources are not RS. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also UrduPoint source, which is largest and most viewed Urdu website.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OKAT but the source does not talk in detail about the subject. It is not enough to demonstrate the notability of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib Please let me know, if source like urdupoint talk in detail about subject, than will you remove delete suggestion template? --Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot solely rely on a single source. --Saqib (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Saqib, There are hundreds of search result in English other than facebook, twitter and wikipedia. There are also thousands of search result in Urdu. Sujbect has hundreds of thousand fan following on social media. There is a RS, according to you that is not much talked about sujebct. I think this shoould be enough to Keep the page. However, if you want further RS, please give me some time to further improve the page with RSs. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of search result in English other than facebook, twitter and wikipedia. There are also thousands of search result in Urdu. Sujbect has hundreds of thousand fan following on social media.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need RS, not any source. The sources in the G' search results are not RS. We do not care how much fans or followers the subject has on social media. WP:NOFRIENDS. --Saqib (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will upadte the page with RS very soon. Please don't delete in hurry.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will take just couple of days to update page with RSs.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Abu Aleeha is a senior film-maker and director. MShamsudDin (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC) — MShamsudDin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This user is blocked for socking.--Saqib (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 2 Rss (UrduPoint and DawnNews) in page, I think this is enough to give me some time to add more. Thanks for your patience.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn source verifies only one film in the subject's name which is not enough to pass WP:FILMMAKER. --Saqib (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for reflection on whether new sources added are RS or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and User:Greenbörg. The sockpuppetry confirms, at least to me, this is a self-promotional ad. Ifnord (talk) 17:44, 12 November 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 01:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terence M. O'Rourke[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources, as an unelected candidate he also does not meet WP:NPOL nor do the (unsourced) claims about military service meet WP:NSOLDIER. Original PROD was removed by an IP editor stating: "objected to proposed deletion; there are plenty of third party sources in the article." RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unelected candidate for office with no notability under WP:NPOL and no other claim for inclusion. AusLondonder (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a PR exercise for someone running for office. Agree that this does not pass WP:NPOL or WP:NSOLDIER. Simply running for office is not sufficient for notability. The military service is completely unsourced and even if sourced would be insufficient for notability. His legal career may be his best chance of notability, but the sources seem to be either not independent or just passing mentions. Some do no even mention him at all, for example https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/joint-terrorism-task-forces. His two years as an assistant US attorney (and his other activities) don't appear to have generated any significant coverage that I can find. I don't see this passing WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC. If he is elected then sure, but until then, or unless someone can did up solid sources, no. Meters (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a bunch of reliable sources to both his legal career and his military service sections. He has been consistently covered by the media in New Hampshire since declaring his candidacy. At worst, this article should be placed back into draft form. — 2601:184:407F:8B91:BDBD:2663:7B71:5B6A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - sorry the media coverage is only about his campaign. Candidates are not generally notable as per WP:OUTCOMES. If he is elected different story. Gbawden (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at all of the new sources added by the IP yet, but the first one I checked https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/18/1706873/-Daily-Kos-Elections-Live-Digest-10-18#update-1508363228000 was a blog (and hence not a reliable source). The next one I checked https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/aln/News/April%202012/April%2010,%202012%20Convicted%20Felon.html confirms that he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney but does nothing to establish notability as it is just a passing mention. ~~The next one http://www.votevets.org/about?id=0004 does not mention him at all, and as far as I can see he is not lasted anywhere on that site.~~ Meters (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the archive of the vote vets site does confirm his one year of service in Iraq. Meters (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources are simple routine coverage "prosecuted by O'Rourke" etc or about his campaign. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. Domdeparis (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Striking !vote by confirmed sockpuppet RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC) ) Subject of article, Terence O'Rourke, is a Democratic candidate in what will be a highly contested primary race in New Hampshire's First Congressional District. I believe the 18 sources already added to the article show that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for WP:POLITICIAN - he has "received 'significant press coverage' [and] has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Significant press coverage will continue through the campaign and it doesn't seem like now is the time to delete this article now. — Jcmm7722 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC). To be precise, the user has made all of a dozen other edits, all more than 4 years ago. Meters (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC) — Jcmm7722 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mooneyjc (talk • contribs). (the article was created by Portpaul, another of Mooneyjc's socks). Meters (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Keep, I’m not sure where to include this, but in response to one of the comments for deletion - specifically, “Unelected candidate for office with no notability under WP:NPOL and no other claim for inclusion”, I’d like to add that O’Rourke is, in fact, an elected official. He has been an elected official in my town for four years as a member of the Alton Budget Committee. Now, in the wake of the 2016 election, that may not seem like a big “election” to some of you, but to a town of only a couple thousand people, who already feel like they get left out of everything, that means something. He literally means the difference, for example, between whether the school budget passes or not. Not only is it an elected position, it is done without any pay or compensation whatsoever. Without people like O’Rourke who are willing to filll these positions in our small towns, our day to day functions would, quite literally, break down. So, if it means adding one more measly little Wikipedia page to the already millions you have, then would it hurt to honor a local official who is doing, has done, and will do more for the average person day to day than a dumb, two-bit YouTube celebrity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTubers)?

Oh, and for your source (below), I would direct you specifically to the second line of the town’s site where it indicates that the members of the committee are elected. https://www.alton.nh.gov/government/budget-committee

Thank you. — 65.175.147.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:15, November 7, 2017 (UTC).

Wikipedia does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every single person who's ever held any elected office at all — a person has to hold a notable political office, such as the state or federal legislatures, to qualify for an article on here, not just to have served on a municipal budget committee in a small town. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the above entry was added to the top of this afd by ip 65.175.147.50, i have moved it into the discussion proper as a "keep" due to its content. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to that comment, I would direct the IP user to WP:NPOL's note that "Just being an elected local official... does not guarantee notability". Further, they may want to consult Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 16:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All four of the named editors who have contributed to the article are CU-confirmed socks of user:Mooneyjc. All of the IPs who have contributed to the article or commented in this AFD are SPAs. Meters (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As yet unelected candidates for Congress do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — a person has to win the election and thereby hold the office, not just stand as a candidate, to qualify for an article per WP:NPOL. But this makes no valid claim of preexisting notability for other reasons — a municipal budget committee is not a notable office, and the law stuff is referenced to glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that are not about him. And neither is the congressional candidacy referenced to anything like the depth of reliable source coverage it would take to deem him a special case — it's referenced to the minimal degree of media coverage that every candidate in any election always gets from the local media because covering local politics is the local media's job. To make a candidate notable because his candidacy is getting coverage, that coverage would have to be exploding far beyond the run of the mill volume of purely local coverage that any candidate could simply expect to receive. As always, no prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a reason why he would already qualify for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Københavns Badminton Klub[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:It is a 90-year old club with multiple national championships and many notable members. I really don't see why anyone would consider it unnotable unless it relies on a bias based on sport and/or country. I have no idea what "GNG" stands for since I don't normally take part in this sort of discussions and is therefore unable to address that issue.Ramblersen (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. seemsto havea substantial history . We're pretty inclusive for sports organisations like this. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable badminton organization. Lack of GNG doesn't mean this articles is non-notable. Stvbastian (talk) 05:14, 10 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic Badminton Club[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately. Historical long term organisations such as this "should" have articles. However, apart from sufficient to show that it EXISTS I can find nothing, including on TROVE back to 1956 (assuming its name did not change at some point). Aoziwe (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 12:54, 11 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peru International Series[edit]

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

Non-notable badminton tournament. Currently unreferenced, indicating a lack of GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable badminton tournament, and meet GNG. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Please be careful to nominating articles for deletion. I suggest you to learn about WP:AFD especially in WP:BEFORE part. Stvbastian (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable badminton tournament (BWF sanctioned), and meets GNG.Florentyna (talk) 23:26, 10 November 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 Aygün Kazımova. Sandstein 20:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee from Colombia[edit]

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

Mister Memmedov (who nominated this for AfD), please put your reasons for starting AfDs, you have been asked to do this several times and keep making the same mistakes.

Redirect to artist doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creator has now just been blocked for promotional only/undisclosed paid editing, on articles about this artist, so will no longer be able to join the conversation. Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aygün Kazımova. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator created a blank page here and did not transclude it to a daily log. As noted above, nominator is now indef-blocked. Fixed now--I offer no other opinions here at this time. --Finngall ^talk 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm confused here – it was an alter ego of Mister Memmedov who created the article in the first place and reverted a previous PROD and subsequent redirects several times, so I'm not entirely sure he was the one who put it up for AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: It seems wacky, but indeed the first appearance of an AfD tag on the article was with this edit. I'm not even going to speculate on the reasoning. --Finngall ^talk 15:04, 7 November 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 List of things named after Donald Trump#Food and drink. Sandstein 20:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Natural Spring Water[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Trump Ice

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

Article primarily sourced to a single press release and the corporate website of the maker or owner of a product. Not notable per WP:GNG by any stretch. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I am finding passing references to this product, such as: this Washington Post article about many Trump-labeled products and this Wall Street Journal article about Trump Hotels (most of which is behind a paywall, but I find nothing of substance which focuses on the product itself. Such passing mentions do not satisfy general notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not able to find any significant coverage to demonstrate the topic meets WP:ORGCRITE or WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Donald Trump. AusLondonder (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of things named after Donald Trump#Food and drink As with most 'vanity' bottled waters, just yet another brand that if you took the label off, nobody would care where it's from (compare to the many store brands bottled by Niagara Bottling). Nate • (chatter) 01:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of things named after Donald Trump#Food and drink. Plausible redirect that can be covered in toto at that location. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect (insert favorite tasteless joke here) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list doesn't allow development of this topic. An interesting merge target would be Trump Steaks. A search on ["trump water" "trump steaks"] was helpful.
This product is far more famous than its commercial success, because Trump used it during the 2016 Republican primary to claim that Mitt Romney had attacked it. The water was featured at a famous press conference that was characterized as an infomercial, ref, along with Trump Steaks, Trump Wine, Trump Magazine, and Trump University. This led to investigation of the water, which was found to be bottled by Village Springs, who provides bottled water for many customers. A look at Google news shows that as of 26 October 2017, "Trump water" is still current political lingo, which pretty much seals the case that the notability is enduring, [17]. Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: just confirming, you want to merge to Trump Steaks? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a merge to Trump Steaks would work, since the two topics are intertwined. I think that the steak is slightly more notable...unlike the water, Romney really did question the failed steak business, diff. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 13 November 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 indicates that this creationist has not enough coverage about himself, rather than about associated organizations, to be a notable creationist. Discounting the "keep" by OtisDixon who does not seem to understand what it is we are discussing about. Sandstein 20:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lisle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Like former AfD, this person fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:SCHOLAR. a BEFORE search brings up mostly quotes, and/or Lisle's association with Institute for Creation Research (a potential target for merging). Claims of discovering a planet [18] appear to be based only on Lisle's own assertions: independent corroboration in reliable sources of this claimed discovery are needed. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything in the previous AfD still applies. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What I find outside of creationist sources is minimal, like this article which announces the Creation Museum and makes a mention (not significant coverage and is the only mention in The Guardian; I found no mention in The Washington Post even if that's more local). Even "instrumental in developing popular planetarium shows" claim of significance from the nominator's article link is in-universe, since the planetarium is the museum's. —Paleo Neonate – 20:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seven years ago, during the previous AfD, someone wrote "It may very well be that he becomes a prominent spokesman for Creationism in the future, in which case he'll genuinely merit a page on those grounds. But for the moment, he's notable neither as a scientist or as a creationist." It has been seven years, and he is still not notable as a scientist nor a creationist. The previous AfD got it right. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How did this article get recreated in the first place? I think a WP:TROUT dinner might need to be delivered. jps (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the nominator in the first AfD? Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD is publicly accessible from the new article's talk page (at the top) or from the above box in this AfD (which everyone can notice and consult). —Paleo Neonate – 03:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if that exoplanet exists (very questionable on its own), finding a single planet in Kepler data doesn't automatically lead to notability of the discoverer, and I see nothing else beyond that. --mfb (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or delete~~ It didn't take much research to find that this topic has a pseudonym confounded with another prominent astrophysicist, so all of the analysis from the first AfD and above has been superficial. This topic has an astrophysics degree from the University of Colorado, yet our article tries to paint his work as pseudoscience by inferring that all scientific work put into creationism is pseudoscience. That is a logical fallacy, and the source used for this claim does not mention Lisle.
As per the article, "his ideas are widely regarded...in the scientific community" Well, so that should satisfy the question of notability, so keep. Or is that using Wikipedia's voice to disparage a BLP? So delete. Or maybe merge to ICR. Or delete and redirect to ICR with option to write more there. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"his ideas are widely regarded...in the scientific community" this is clearly the editor's wording for "are pseudoscience" and yes, some of my, or your ideas, may also be widely regarded as erroneous by science experts, even if they don't happen to know us... —Paleo Neonate – 03:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two verifiable sources attacking Lisle's views (I have no idea what Haarsma 2010 refers to) do not mention Lisle at all, and so cannot bear on notability. My grandfather's beliefs in Creationism are equally disregarded by the scientific community, that doesn't merit him an article. We decide notability by the existence of significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, not the present state of any article. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting ideas that are notable doesn't make a person notable. The pseudoscience ideas are notable and they have their own articles, but this is unrelated to the discussion here. --mfb (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- seven years on, the subject is still nn either as a scienties or a creationist. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in mainstream sources, needed to provide neutral coverage of fringe subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEYMANN I cleaned up, sourced the article. it is brief, but his bio, career and opinions are reliably sourced to multiple articles in national and international big city dailies going back more than a decade. He is an oddity, a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado who pretends to make evidence-based arguments for the Young Earth creationism theory. However, Arguments for deletion above referencing a 7-year-old AfD are pretty irrelevant in a youthful career, especially as that AfD speaks to his h-index when the notability for Lisle is clearly about his role as a science director for an ambitions museum, the Creation Museum, and as house scientist for the Institute for Creation Research, an organization that we need ot regard as a think tank for a non-mainstream POV that many people JUSTDONOTLIKE. Do we have to agree with Lisle to acknowledge that sourcing exists to support an article? No. We have a responsibility to expand this page so that impressionable youth coming to the page can read a neutral, encyclopedic account of Lisle's work and opinions. Debunk him, don't delete him. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It still looks like a delete to me — it's definitely an improvement, but the new nonlocal sources (Dallas News and Spiegel) are mostly about the ICR (which is notable), not about Lisle, and only mention or quote him in passing. So they don't provide the depth of coverage needed to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulatively, I believe they suffice to meet WP:SIGCOV. What I am certain of is that I merely scratched the surface here, he has had a great deal of coverage, and I suspect that a good faith search will enable the article to be expanded, with both admiring profiles and detailed debunkings in wp:rs. 00:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Editors have been doing "good faith searches", so the results are not surprising or a mystery at this point, despite what is "suspect". Unfortunately, such a search will not enable the article to be expanded. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Per E.M.Gregory, who vastly improved the article and added several reliable and independent sources, showing that Lisle is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article and meets WP:GNG. It's been seven years since the last AfD for this article, and much has changed since then. If people actually look for reliable/independent sources about Lisle (which E.M.Gregory did), they will find that what all I just said is the case. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alright, if you don't think this page meets the notability guidelines - though Lisle has been mentioned by the Guardian, as pointed out by Aniamparty!, and featured in a CNN programme debating Eugenie Scott, as well as being a central figure in creationism - I think it is worthy at least a section in one of the creationism articles, as I can find plenty and plenty of creationist sources mentioning Jason Lisle. In addition, as already explained by above users, the article has been cleaned up, and references have been added which satisfy the WP:GNG ^Ol^Ja 21:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails PROF as well as GNG. People keep discussing sources that mention him as being relevant to notability; they are not.Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Quote from WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". If you look at the Dallas News, there is an entire section dedicated specifically to Lisle. There are numerous other texts about Lisle in non-creationist sources^Ol^Ja 23:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not significantly covered by reliable sources fails PROF GNG, and ANYBIO. Also, this CNN link provided above [19] does not signifigantly cover the subject, but rather U.S. Representative Paul Broun. The Guardian article mentioned above is passing mention. Per David Eppstein significant coverage of fringe activity in multiple reliable sources is required for a neutrally based Wikipedia article. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not look to pass WP:GNG/WP:BIO. The best sources I've seen have him speaking on behalf of the Institute for Creation Research, for which we already have an article, and little coverage independent of the ICR (coverage doesn't absolutely have to be independent, but I'd want to see more about him in particular rather than consulting him in that context). Not opposed to a Redirect should he be mentioned in the ICR article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I've read, Lisle is as well known among Creationists as all of the other creationists who have WP pages. Even if you eradicate all creationists from WP, it is highly unlikely that it will make much difference in the general public. They will just look elsewhere, while they wonder why WP appears to censor certain people and groups. It is better to have a page on WP where you can marshal rebuttal against them, that the public is unlikely to get else where. It seems to me that the following WP policy applies to Lisle and Creationists in general:

Undue weight: “Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” And, “Theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.... Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them… But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.”

Reliable Sources: “Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves”… “ “Questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field.” --OtisDixon (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OtisDixon: I don't think anybody is arguing that the article should be deleted because Lisle is a creationist. The question is whether he is a notable creationist. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OtisDixon: thank you for reviewing those policies, you are right. But we also have articles covering creationists who are notable and those are not about to be deleted. —Paleo Neonate – 21:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the sources to be used to determine if he is notable would be, according to the police above, creation sources since he is part of that minor movement. --OtisDixon (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite E.M.Gregory's improvements, I'm not convinced there are sufficient sources here. Google turns up a lot of creationist outlets and sceptic blogs, but very little in the way of reliable sources. Of the few that are out there, the article in the Dallas News seems to be the only one that does more than drop Lisle's name for a quote or in relation to the ICR. This is a BLP on a fringe topic; we need more than a weak case for notability. – Joe (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess we're really doing this. The issue here is that this is a WP:FRINGEBLP. I don't think anyone is arguing that this person passes WP:AUTHOR, WP:CELEBRITY, WP:PROF, etc. What we need is non-trivial mentions in independent sources identifying the person as notable (not just a quote or an off-handed mention that this person with their fringe beliefs exists). This is something we lack. Now some may object, "Why do we need such high standards?" The answer is because fringe subjects need to be written to comply with WP:NPOV. In this case, the lack of notice by WP:MAINSTREAM subjects of the person who is the subject means that there is no way we properly write the article to comply with both the protections for living people (sourcing) as well as properly couch the ideas that this person espouses. Essentially, we need to avoid the original research that would be required to properly identify this fellow as a pusher of pseudoscience which is the mainstream assessment. Because he hasn't received the non-trivial outside notice we demand to write Wikipedia fringe biographical articles, it is not appropriate to keep this article. If he becomes more famous like, say Ken Ham or Duane Gish, we can revisit the issue. jps (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is INDEPTH coverage in rs media that is decidedly not ideologically part of young earth creationist. Letting Science Interpret Scripture is a Slippery Slope Says Young Earth Creationist Alex Murashko, Christian Post, 13 August 2013.

Note also that our page on Creationist cosmologies#Creationist cosmology and science devotes a subhead to Lisle.

Unsurprisingly, there is even more INDEPTH in media favorable to young earth creationism Do Fossils Support Creation?, New Universe Research Confirms Biblical Teaching on Astronomy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no "subhead to Lisle" ?? Theroadislong (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A loose reference to the contents of Creationist cosmologies#Creationist cosmology and science, Lisle was the house scientist at Answers in Genesis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still, there is no subhead to devoted to Lisle. The subtopic is "Creationist cosmology and science" not "Lisle" in a Wikpedia article. So saying "devoted subhead to Lisle" is inaccurate and confusing. The Lisle reference in this subsection is a primary source that has not been covered in third party reliable sources, so it does not qualify as indicating notability for this biography. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More formal debunkings of Lisel and his work can be found in a 2014 University of Louisville PhD dissertation An analysis of the Creation Museum by Steven Mark Watkins and in Righting America at the Creation Museum, Susan L. Trollinger, William Vance Trollinger, Jr., Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016. Look, its not that I fail to understand the logic of wanting to exclude fringe theories from the project. I vote to delete them with some regularity. But the Creation Museum exists, as does the Institute for Creation Research, and they make a mot of noise in the world. Moreover, his books sell, and they get discussed beyond the surprisingly large circle of other people who write young earth books - by writers who take his arguments apart, sometimes temperately, and sometimes intemperately. I just don't see how we delete a guy who gets this much ink.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nobody is arguing for delete just because this is fringe. That's a strawman. But I'm not seeing that much "ink". The PhD is about the creation museum (indisputably notable); it only mentions Lisle once (pg. 298). Righting America at the Creation Museum has two passing mentions (pg. 71–72 and 145–146). The section of creationist cosmologies you just claimed was "devoted" to Lisle doesn't even contain his name in the text. The creationist sources are irrelevant and the evangelical Christian Post is hardly mainstream.

With all due respect, this is becoming a familiar pattern in your participation in AfDs: I get the impression that either you don't understand what in depth means, or you are deliberately trying to pass off every stray hit from a keyword search as "significant coverage". – Joe (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF what I do is take a simple approach to articles at AfD: I look for sources. Most bios brought to AfD are PROMO. a couple of quick searches sorts the wheat from the PROMO chaff. But most bio at AfD are of people who get very few hits on searches of any kind. Just occasionally I come upon a bio like "Jason Lisle", a name that gets an enormous number of hits and a discussion where editor after editor is making claims like "No significant coverage in mainstream sources" or "I found no mention in The Washington Post" So I searched WaPo ("jason Lisle" site:washingtonpost.com) and got this hit (Atheism and the silly goodness competition - OnFaith newsweek.washingtonpost.com/.../atheism_and_the_silly_goodness_competition.html Feb 17, 2010 - 'In the spring 2009 edition of the Phi Kappa Phi Forum, Molecular geneticist Georgia Purdom and astrophysicist Jason Lisle put up a spirited ...) Any subject at AfD with an enormous number of hits and multiple editors making sweeping, dismissive claims makes me suspicious. And there are some real problems with the arguments for deletion, your ad hominem attack aside. One is that I did not bring mere mentions or mere quote-the-expert sources to the discussion, only sources that spoke, however briefly, to Lisle's bio or to his ideas. Another is your dismissal of The Christian Post as a source. It is a respected newspaper, and Evangelical, but NOT editorially committed to a young earth approach. The great problem with Lisle is that searches drown in a sea of young earth sources. But not one editor has yet tapped the serious engagement with his work by old earth creationists, a good deal of which can be found in The Christian Post, and more in books. Nor have good faith searches been made for debunking of Lisle's work by actual scientists - although that clearly appears to have been the intention of the editor who created this page 3 days ago. There is simply too much material available on Lisle to make deletion reasonable, and too few editors willing to seek it out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the sources cited at Creationist cosmologies#Creationist cosmology and science may have material appropriate for use on this page. I continue to believe that a Lisle is notable. And hope that an editor well versed in young earth and it fallacies will take an hour or so to add a proper debunking to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that came across as a personal attack. I didn't mean it to be one, and I don't like to comment on editors, but I have encountered you at enough AfDs to see a systematic problem that I think needs to be called out. And I think it's exactly this kind of thinking—"multiple editors making sweeping, dismissive claims makes me suspicious"—that gets you into trouble. "Suspicious" of what, exactly? That we have all colluded to expunge Mr. Lisle from the historical record? Have you considered that we may simply have done the same research and come to a different conclusion? You are not the only person who can search for sources. But if you exclude the "hits" that are literally just one or two sentences about Lisle, and the fringe creationist sources (old or young, it doesn't matter), what is left? – Joe (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Post is not independent coverage and is not mainstream RS. The PhD dissertation is passing mention of Lisle. Essentially, again, coverage is passing mention in all the sources mentioned above. I don't agree with characterizing these as sufficient coverage - it is inaccurate and confusing to say so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Are you saying no Christian newspaper can be independent of any Christian?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's well established that The Christian Post is an independent and legitimate source when dealing with YEC. Christian does not necessarily equal YEC, at least when looking at the views of Christians, such as those at the C.P. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I would not take a passing mention in a PhD dissertations as being WP:SIGCOV. Other sources are likewise insufficient. Despite WP:HEYMAN, the notability threshold has not been met in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor page in reliably sources, but underdeveloped condition. For example, it does not even mention Lisle's books, which ought to be listed and discussion of them in reliable non-young earth sources added. I am requesting that this discussion be continued for a week to enable me - and perhaps other editors - to expand and source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would severely object to this per WP:BLPDELETE. You can develop it in a sandbox, but keeping this poorly considered article without critical evaluation public is causing problems. jps (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The best sources are poor, fails the subnotability guidelines, and there are no meaningful incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Young earth creationism has the reputation of being FRINGE. It is however a widely held belief, though it is not mine. At present the article has little on his publications, so that his notability seems to depend on his connection with Creation Museum, which seems to have more substance to it than many "halls of fame" that we regularly seem to keep. The museum article is a long one, and I cannot recommend merging or redirecting to it, which might have been an alternative. I would support E.M.Gregory's request for closure to be deferred, perhaps by relisting. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known creationist. Sources indicates notability as well. Third party, like Der Spiegel. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass our general notability guideline. When editors do a good-faith review of the sources here and in a search, it is soon revealed that most of them are passing mentions or, in other words, not an indication of notability. For whatever reason, some of the sources are being passed off as indepth when really they are not. Hopefully, any additional !voters realize that and come to a similar assessment as I and others have here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:23, 13 November 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. Albeit the article is in terrible shape I understand there is more reason to keep. (non-admin closure) — Ammarpad (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aminu Abdullahi Shagali[edit]

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

Non notable local politician, WP:POLITICIAN. prod removed by IP saying he met WP:POLITICIAN while the guideline clearly started being a local politician or office holder does mean automatic notabilkty as the person's life still has to detailed in multiple reliable sources for extended time. Nothing about this, the only 2 sources used is about electionnews in which everybody winners and losers are mentioned alike –Ammarpad (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Ammarpad (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, he is the speaker of Kaduna State house of assembly as stated here, that translates to meeting WP:NPOLITICIAN to me. Darreg (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And statewide legislators are mostly notable, he isn't even just a legislator but the elected speaker, definitely notable. A Google search produced several routine coverage 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Darreg (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First see WP:GOOGLEHITS and be aware, leaders.com, Kaakaki.com and my school.com.ng are all unreliable websites (They are not even news sources initially). None has editorial board and none has locatable office address. — Ammarpad (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This man, you haven't said anything about my rationale for voting keep. Your reply is empty, you can do better this this. I didn't give those sources to establish notability. I gave them to show there are several routine coverage on him. Everything in those sources are covered by newspaper sites, if that is what you want. You can use Google search if you are not satisfied. These are even more coverage by your so-called "reliable sources" 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, etc. Now tell me how many of these sources are unreliable again? You sound like you just want to prove a point from your reply. Darreg (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NPOL's statement about local officeholders refers to officeholders at the municipal or county levels — mayors, city councillors, school board trustees, county boards, etc. — and not to officeholders in state legislatures, who are covered by NPOL #1. Yes, this needs referencing improvement, but he does fully meet the inclusion criteria and we're not limited to online referencing on web pages — if somebody can find paper referencing from the newspaper or newspapers that cover Kaduna, those will be perfectly acceptable references too. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. WP:NPOL is more than met; the article can be improved, but should not be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources identified above need to be better incorporated into the article. However, all members of state level assemblies such as the ones in Nigeria, past and present are notable. Our coverage in most cases is way below that threshold, but that is what politician notability guidelines say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 12 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Cristian Micle[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable blogger per WP:NBIO or WP:NCREATIVE. Article was probably created on spec to promote the blog. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I already mentioned those doubts when I edited the page a year ago (see talk page). --Qwacker (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable creative professional who fails WP:NCREATIVE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:40, 13 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Ahmad Khan (journalist)[edit]

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

Vanity bio. No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reference at all. could had been deleted speedy. --Saqib (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. sami ^talk 02:21, 11 November 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. Sandstein 20:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Avenatti[edit]

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

Initially this article was created with significantly promotional language and some key statements unreferenced which may have been sufficient for a CSD. The controversial statements have been removed. However the concern remains about the promotional nature of the article. Some references remain questionable as self-published. While the references provided (and search results I found) establish his existence and confirm some facts, notability is questionable as the references are about cases he is involved in, quoting him, but none of the articles are actually ABOUT him. Essentially this is run of the mill a lawyer doing his job. Also, high profile clients don't create notability as this is not inherited _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has suffered the usual deficiencies of a vanity bio since its creation, and merits watching for WP:COI involvement. Whatever the notability may be as an attorney, he's not notable as a race driver. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity bio is an accurate summary. I've fixed a factual error in the article; while finishing on the 6th place team at the 2015 24 Hours of Le Mans might be enough for notability as a race driver, his team was actually 36th of 37 finishing teams. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 11 November 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. Sandstein 20:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Plourde[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Poorly sourced WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones ("More recently, Ms. Plourde has decided to use her local celebrity and attractiveness to raise money for the Canadian Breast Cancer Society in a novel manner"), of a person notable primarily as a former television personality. TV personalities do not get an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass just because they exist, but there's not enough sourcing here to get her over WP:GNG -- the sole source is a glancing namecheck of her existence in a "what's on TV tonight" blurb that isn't about her, which isn't enough. And the only other potential notability claim (which this article actually misses) is that she now serves on one of Montreal's borough councils, but that's not an WP:NPOL pass either: we accept Montreal's city councillors as notable, but not its separate arrondissement councillors. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is horrendously out of date, the More recently, Ms. Plourde has decided to use her local celebrity and attractiveness to raise money for the Canadian Breast Cancer Society in a novel manner. sentence dates to January 2007. No references that suggest notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 11 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Analog[edit]

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

No indication or evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 15:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 15:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 15:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A SPA writes this with a company website as the only source for six years? Be gone! Rhadow (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails CORPDEPTH since it's not reviewed in 2011. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 21:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; this should have been speedy-deleted 5 years ago. It's now known as Butcher Pedals but I don't see anything for that name either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 11 November 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 Tata Open India International Challenge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Open India International Challenge 2011[edit]

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

Unreferenced, empty article. Also questionable notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless skeleton article. All the information needed to fill in the empty table is already in the Tata Open India International Challenge article but copying it from there wouldn't make this article any more necessary or useful! Neiltonks (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Tata Open India International Challenge because Tata Open India International Challenge 2010, Tata Open India International Challenge 2012, Tata Open India International Challenge 2013, Tata Open India International Challenge 2014, Tata Open India International Challenge 2015 also redirects there. Excelse (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I hadn't spotted the redirects because I didn't think to look at the other years! In that case, I'd be happy with the redirect rather than deletion if others thinks that's the better resolution. Neiltonks (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tata Open India International Challenge for consistency and per WP:NSEASONS which says that's preferable. Smartyllama (talk) 13:23, 13 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greene Fort Pinkston[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As someone whose parents were likely born as slaves and ended up as a prosperous physician and landowner, this individual is "notable" by common definitions of the word. The question whether there is enough written about him by WP:RS sources to support a standalone article is a more difficult one. This newspaper article ([20]) contains the most detail I could find online and it also mention's a 1963 Memphis Press-Scimitar article about Pinkston by Clark Porteous, which should be available in library archives. Combined with the Arcadia Publishing book entry [21] already included as a reference, I find the decision a close one. Some will likely say that the offered sources are merely local or regional coverage, but I think it would be unrealistic to expect wider coverage for, as the above newspaper article's author put it: "an African-American man who overcame the obstacles thrown in front of him by the Jim Crow South, to become an important landowner and physician". 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (edit conflict) - Subject passes WP:V, article passes WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. Individual was one of the earliest black doctors in the Memphis area and one of the earliest black drug company owners in America. I don't seem to have access to the archives of the Memphis Commercial Appeal or the Memphis Press Scimitar, but both of those newspapers would be useful places to look for more coverage of the individual, indeed the 2016 article from the Appeal by Wright references a 1963 article (possibly an obit) in the Scimtar. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His birth was too late for him to have been a slave, though presumably his parents had been. Nevertheless as a pioneer of Black achievement, he is probably notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 6 November 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 withdrawn. Editor requests closing this here. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suncoast Credit Union[edit]

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

This is a contested speedy deletion. The history section is pretty much copied straight from the organization's website, and although I haven't looked deeply into it, I wouldn't be surprised if the section about the foundation is too. If we remove the history section, we are left with mostly unreferenced advertising. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:25, 6 November 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. Sandstein 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rockin' Romance 2[edit]

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

Well I can't slap an A9 on this since even I have heard of some of the artistes, but this just seems like yet another random compilation set designed to be sold in supermarkets and gas stations. If there was a ref to a serious review I'd have to demur, but really, nobody takes notice of stuff like this. Do they?? TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll have a proper look at this later in the week, but on first glance, the article's creator appears to have created a string of articles about non-notable albums. Even the ones that superficially look notable because chart placings are included, like Punk Goes Pop Vol. 7, I haven't been able to confirm the chart positions so they look as though they might have been made up. Richard3120 (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references in the article and no claim of meeting WP:NMUSIC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:56, 11 November 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Fastest Cars in the World (2014)[edit]

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

I cannot see how this random (why 2014) list of monuments to arrested development and conspicuous consumption is in any way deserving of an an article. TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Collection of facts about cars with little or no independent verification. It seems some of the cars are ranked purely on claims of top speeds by the producers. The ranking is just a reproduction of the first source (which lacks reliability), effectively becoming a mirror of that article and giving it credence by being on WP. To be meaningful, such list would contain independently verified tests under controlled and comparable conditions. Some of the wordings also seem quite promotional. Therefore deletion on the basis of WP:NOTRS, WP:SOAP

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure whats promotional about it, but it sure is random, and based on primary sources. Given that we a perfectly good article at Fastest cars in the world (actually that’s a redirect to Production car speed record) this seems slightly indiscriminate. Dysklyver 16:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Dysklyver above. Nightfury 16:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly self published sources from the vehicle manufacturers themselves. WP:NOTMIRROR also applies. Ajf773 (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary article creation about fastest cars in the world in 2014. In fact, Wikipedia doesn't have a article list of Speedest cars or any other vehicle lists by considering each and every calendar years. The content in the article is also not reliable. Abishe (talk) 23:18, 6 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Marburg Jr.[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything that makes him notable. No mention of what he pioneered in aviation (if he did), otherwise reads like a typical service veteran Gbawden (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally a New York Times obituary is the defacto mark of notability. --RAN (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It seems his wartime service also included operating a recruiting station in the USA after his injury, and that he was the focus of a legal determination regarding the loss of citizenship of those who pledge allegiance to foreign forces. Some sources: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29].Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes V, NPOV, NOR, etc. Individual was a member of high society as the son of a prominent ambassador and his life was well covered in contemporary sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It sounds as if his loss of American citizenship was a cause celebre at the time, which should be sufficient to make him notable. His military service was probably not out of the ordinary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It is considerably more difficult to find sources on individuals before online media could push out a story in 10 minutes. Considering the sources Icewhiz found, I have to lean toward keeping.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable bio covered in reliable sources there is his details in print books too which I am not sure whether they're digitized now. — Ammarpad (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned, back in these days things weren't so easy to source. But there's enough here to work, combined with the fact that he was the direct cause/subject of a change in the citizenship requirements. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His father is more famous, but there still seems to be enough sources to have written this short but informative article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Agree with Peterkingiron above; with that said, borderline trivia. Not a reason to delete, but could use some expansion. Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 7 November 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. As noted in the discussion, no justification is evident or has been presented to support this particular intersection. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British jazz musicians with Queen's Birthday Honours[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. DrStrauss talk 10:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What exactly is 'indiscriminate' about it? --Michig (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start, MBEs and above are not only awarded on the Queen's Birthday, and there is no difference between those awarded then and in, for example, the New Year Honours. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main article appears to be the stub Birthday Honours (which doesn't even limit itself to the UK's). This list (which is what it is, despite its title) never implies that "MBEs and above are ... awarded on the Queen's Birthday," from what I can see. Those section headings appear to be there for the purposes of list organization. It's a distinct honour, is it not? If so, the question for me is whether it merits a list, with lists having to meet a lower threshold than categories for award honourees. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Michig points out, we don't have a particularly clear deletion rationale, as Birthday Honours appears to be a distinct set of Commonwealth honours, the UK's among them. I suppose the nominator -- who is now indef banned -- could well be asking why Jazz musicians with birthday honours as a starting point? But every list has to start somewhere. I've added some relevant categories and a link to the main article, and that may help direct users to improve this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a distinct honour. Once again, there's no difference between the honours awarded on the Queen's birthday and the ones awarded in the New Year Honours or on special occasions such as a prime minister resigning. Any honour can be awarded at any of these times, and no distinction is made between the ones awarded at different times of the year. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, we do have a rather extensive category tree Category:Birthday Honours but I take your point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not an indiscriminate list, but well-defined. I have a problem with the title, which is (a) both under- and overspecific and (b) doesn't say that this is a list article. As has already been pointed out, there is no difference between Birthday Honours and those awarded on any other occasion. The first two names which came to my mind were Dame Cleo Laine (New Year, 1997) and Sir John Dankworth (New Year, 2006). I propose renaming to something like "List of British jazz musicians who have received UK honours". The main article for that is more substantial: Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom#Modern honours. Narky Blert (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult, because of the historical background, to come up with a title that best represents the article that we should have. These are not, for the most part, purely UK honours but honours awarded by the UK monarch, who is also head of state of some other countries, some of which have the same honours system. As a start I would not limit this to British jazz musicians, as it's quite possible (though I haven't checked) that some non-British jazz musicians have been awarded honours within this system. An example of such a non-jazz musician that springs to mind is Bob Geldof, and it's quite likely that some non-British jazz musicians have also been honoured. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a reasonable solution. --Michig (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for several reasons. One, it's unsourced, failing WP:BLP. Two, it seems an odd intersection to create a stand-alone list, with a triple-inclusion criteria (British people who are jazz musicans who have been honoured). And three, is there it a common enough occurance to justify it being an article in its own right, with enough real-world notability outside of WP? Maybe for musicians who've made the main list, but not for such a small number of people. Is there justification for British classical musicians with Queen's Birthday Honours? Or British rock musicians with Queen's Birthday Honours? Or British plumbers with Queen's Birthday Honours? etc, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as way too narrow sub-list. Since the "honors" are not specific award, just an occasion when a particular award was conferred, I don't see a value in sub-lists of honor recipients by profession. Renata (talk) 22:03, 9 November 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. Sandstein 20:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Pellow[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Coverage of her is limited to her work as an undergraduate intern in programming Line Mode Browser (the 2nd web browser) under the direction of Tim Berners-Lee. Little is known of her later or previous life, nor is coverage of her as a subject of sufficient depth for a standalone. Content is already in Line Mode Browser, Web Browser, and perhaps elsewhere so no need to merge. Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I would love to know what happened to her after CERN, that doesn't matter in terms of her notability. She passes ANYBIO #2. Her contribution to the creation of the Internet includes the first cross-platform browser on her own and a team she was part of later ported the browser. She also worked with Cailiau on the MacWWW. Multiple sources [30], [31], [32] show she was the one who created it, so she passes. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even in this context, she is mentioned in passing as a programmer (a novice undergrad at CERN for a year who did a crash course in C) who wrote this crude browser to the specification of Berners-Lee, a port of previously written Next specific software.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: Berners-Lee et all in this paper states on page 458 that "The simple line mode browser 'www' originally written by Nicola Pellow has now become a general information access tool." In deciding if she was the person who created the browser, it was that paper and Berners-Lee et all that decided it for me. They clearly see her as the creator of the cross-platform browser. Other sources back the claim up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you search for sources? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I actually did - and went over all (or most) of them (non-news as well). Her involvement as an intern in coding at CERN between November 1990 until August 1991 - passes WP:SIGCOV (including occasional mentions in web History or women in tech news stories). Some sources tack on a subsequent post-graduation return to CERN in 1992 in which she worked under the direction of Robert Cailliau on a Mac browser - as a 1-2 liner. I don't think she passes WP:BIO1E - and (assuming she's alive - I haven't been able to ascertain anything regarding post-1992 - and I at least tried (I did get to other Pellow's on LinkedIn, I wasn't able to find a name change (going on Nicola + "Line Mode" - to see if these is any coverage on a different surname)) WP:BLP1E is an issue as well (as she chose to remain private - all the sourcing here is the original CERN communique and subsequent recollection of people in CERN from her two brief stints at CERN). We do have an article on Line Mode Browser (which is what she coded in 1991) as well as coverage of the event in History of the web browser.Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Line Mode Browser, Web Browser rather than delete because her name is a likely search term. It really does seem to fit WP:BLP1E. She may, of course, at some point draw a Rosalind Franklin sort of attention, and that sort of revisiting of Pellow's life story by journalists and playwrights, would at that point support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk)
Delete (or redirect, since that usually seems to happen in this kind of case). This seems like a perfect example of BLP1E as mentioned already. Ritchie's keep vote above should be discounted at the moment since there's no rationale behind it. MLG gives ANYBIO #2 for keeping (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.). But I hardly think this qualifies in this case, since the explanatory note there begins: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians... Pellow seems to be noted for her contributions, but (from what I can see) doesn't seem to have been written about in any sort of depth. So I don't understand the rationale to keep here. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon Vorbis: There is a perfectly short and simple rationale, which is "if you search for sources, you will find many that can be used for this article", including De Montford University, Daily Telegraph, Ars Technica, PC Magazine, The Guardian, IT World, ZDNet, The Guardian (again). Etc, etc etc..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources can be used for this article, other than to verify Pellow's involvement in the browser development. None of those sources write about Pellow in any greater depth than that. One only mentions her in a picture caption; and all but one give more than about one sentence mentioning her; and that last one not much more. If anything, these sources do nothing but confirm that Pellow shouldn't have a separate article per WP:BLP1E and WP:ANYBIO #2. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Ritchie333: Sources exist - that is not in question. The sole question here is BIO1E and (assuming she's alive) BLP1E. All the soruces out there repeat the same story - giving Pellow credit for the Line Mode Browser. No one has even interviewed her or spoken to her since (presumably because she doesn't want to (BLP1E) or isn't able to - since it probably would be publishable!). None of these sources treat Pellow as the subject - the subject is the line mode browser and Pellow gets credit for it. Going through the sources you provided:

[33] - repeats what we have in our article (and not particularly RS). Tellingly - this publication of her alma mater in 2015 (crediting her with "a bit of help" to WWW) wasn't able to add anything post 1992.
[34] - screenshot of Line Mode Browser with a mention of Pellow in the caption.
[35] - repeat of the same Line Mode Browser Story.
[36] - a one sentence mention of the line mode browser with Pellow.
[37] - a one sentence mention of a generic browser by Pellow.
[38] - a one sentence mention of the line mode browser.
[39] - a one sentence mention which (wrongly, this was the 2nd.) states Pellow created the first web browser.
[40] - a one sentence mention of the line mode browser and pellow.Icewhiz (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Team famous was part of" is not a reason for notability -- all large research and development groups contain people in temporary and supporting roles. `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Snow Keep. Clearly notable with so many references that can't shake a stick at them. The whole team is notable. Without them, we would writing this, on this medium. scope_creep (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Then by all means, please share some of these references that no one else can seem to find. Pellow's contributions are notable (and already are noted) at various articles about browsers, but Pellow herself isn't notable, as already discussed above. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the fact that she developed the worlds first cross platform browser makes her notable. More tommorrow. scope_creep (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a crude text only port to C of the existing first browser (that was graphical, but NEXT specific), that displayed HTML on a dumb terminal (all text). But what is really missing here is anything beyond BIO1E (and assuming she's alive BLP1E).Icewhiz (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anything that is defined as brand new, newly invented, as having never being known before tends to be very crude, in design, think of the first lightbulb or the first telephone, but that doesn't negate her notability. By stating the above, you have stated that she was the first person to use HTML, which again makes here notable. It was clear design decision, by a team, which truly changed the world, to try and include as many people as possible, as early as possible, to make it a success. You can't make a value judgement based on that criteria, because it is impossible to know whether the project was going to be a successfcul, with or without her. As regard your statement DGG, this wasn't some team inventing a new fuel at BP or new engine at GE. That one event was primary change, completely fundamental. A complete shifting of the world. I have never believed in BIO1E and BLP1E as they preclude a whole bunch of perfectly valid and notable folk should have had articles, and enables those folk who shouldn’t have articles, but because they have a name attached to them, they get automatic entry, like certain Apple or Facebook folk. BIO1E and BLP1E are merely guidelines, when the event is that large. They are guidelines that don't apply at this level. If the web was invented yesterday, and an encyclopaedia sprang up, she would have an article, along with most of the team that worked on the project. scope_creep (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crude in relation to the first web browser - WorldWideWeb (which was graphical, with a WYSIWYG HMTL editor). The Line Mode Browser was a small side project (that lived on as a test bed) - view-only, that dumped out a web page to the console.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets remove the fact she was an intern, which is nothing to do with the fact of her notability. scope_creep (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tim Berners-Lee must have thought her important enough to include her in the primary document, sourced by Megalibrarygirl. scope_creep (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Berners-Lee was gracious in handing out credits - not all great inventors are good at handing out credits to underlings and assistants - however Berners-Lee did indeed mention even visiting students who had a contribution.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, You seem to be trying to box the arguments, as though notability is defined by who relates to what, which is false. There is no causal link between crudeness and notablity. It was certainly crude in terms of look and feel, but it has own article, which means its notable, which means crudeness is not an argument. The idea you are positing in the fact that he was gracious, is nonsense, and is entirely subjective. Lee probably realised it was absoluely fundamental primary work, and perhaps decided to include everybody, but you don't known that for fact. It is subjective argument. I could email him, and ask him. That is what I'm going to do tonight, to determine what he thinks about it. On the teams I worked on, up to about 50-60 folk on projects up to £50-£60million, have I ever heard anybody refered to an underling. It is not done. Such terms don't exist in places like Cern, which is an equal opportunities employee, and takes it very seriously. Mutual respect is the name of the game. scope_creep (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Line Mode Browser as she was part of a team which developed it and henceforth, there were no other achievements. If the only claim to fame is being part of a team and creating something, it should be mentioned in the article of the invention. This case is very similar to the case of Paul Viola and Michael Jones whose Viola–Jones object detection framework is remarkably well known (the original paper has 16000 citations), and yet they don't have dedicated articles on the authors (because sources describe the work rather than the people). Similarly there is no article about Jean-François Groff who was also part of the team similar to Nicola Pellow. I had a careful look at the sources shown by Icewhiz and there is only a very brief mention of Pellow. I guess a redirect or a merge is appropriate.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They should have though. We are not a paper encylopedia and it is worth keeping, as she is notable. She is notable because
1. She was the first person to use HTML (in anger) in a client application.
2. She was the first person to build a cross platform browser (All the other people who have built browsers have articles.)
3. She was directly cited by Berners-Lee himself in the primary paper that explains the design of the web.
4. She worked closely with Berers-Lee, to build a product, which Lee thought was needed to get the Web going.
5. She worked on a team, which changed the world.
Lets not be WP:EAGER to delete this. WP:BADNAC is a good policy. scope_creep (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED clearly applies to many of these claims - and arguably also for the coding itself per the direction of her supervisor.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first three aren't and easily satisfy WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first (first to use HTML) isn't sourced (and isn't in our article nor HTML) - and they all result from working as a very junior member on a 19 person team in under Berners-Lee - in any event in BIO1E territory. Note she isn't cited by Berners-Lee - she is briefly mentioned - The simple line mode browser "www" originally written by Nicola Pellow has now become a general information access tool. (that's it, nothing else).Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on claims
- She was the first person to use HTML (in anger) in a client application. - Unreferenced claim
- She was directly cited by Berners-Lee himself in the primary paper that explains the design of the web. - Being directly cited doesn't mean someone is notable. The amount of contribution matters. [41] has exactly 1 or 2 lines about her including "Nicola Pellow is freelance at CERN for a short while"
- She worked closely with Berers-Lee, to build a product, which Lee thought was needed to get the Web going. - Not sure how this is important. Many others worked on teams as part of the www initiative at a similar position.
- She was the first person to build a cross platform browser (All the other people who have built browsers have articles.) - The others who have articles are also known for other contributions, unlike Pellow who is a WP:BIO1E case
- She worked on a team, which changed the world. In that case it is the team which is notable and the innovation which is notable. The team gets an article or the innovation gets an article and Pellow should be mentioned in it. Every member of the team doesn't get a separate article then--DreamLinker (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Note that as you might see here - [42], or here - [43] - Berners-Lee had a whole string of visiting students in the early 90s and many of them did the "first" www something. Most of them do not rate an article - e.g. Jean-Francois Groff or Arthur Secret. Some of them went on to do more notable things. Others have some documented trail, and some (such as Pellow) - have no post-CERN trail at all.Icewhiz (talk) 16:55, 13 November 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. Weird shenanigans aside, I don't really see a policy-based "delete" argument here, except for a somewhat broad claim about GNG, which isn't substantiated. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies only to "relatively unknown, non-public figures", which is clearly not the case with this person who has been repeatedly covered as a performing artist. Sandstein 20:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Maria Bressan[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination based on off-wiki communication requesting deletion of the page on WP:GNG grounds as well as WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Concern is that subject is not notable and is receiving undue attention due to the Wikipedia page. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no issue with this request, I support deletion. As a general note for prosperity, I would support the recreation of this article after the subjects death given the worldcat data coupled with the inevitable obituary would give a good claim to notability. Dysklyver 13:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have several clear issues with this request and do not think we should honor it. Dysklyver 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- There is a more substantial version available for translation from the Italian Wikipedia, it:Filippo Maria Bressan, that has ten references.
- Filippo Maria Bressan over a dozen citations in Google Scholar
- There are plenty of citations available at Google
- Did anyone check the Authority Control at the bottom of the page? That's usually a pretty good indicator of notability.
- Just because an article is a stub does not mean it should be deleted. Impatience with the lack of citations establishing notability does not equate with being not notable.

This article just needs work & citations, not deletion.

Peaceray (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+"Filippo Maria Bressan" - Google Books Search Peaceray (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question "Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion" @Primefac: are you absolutely certain that this is a genuine request from subject of the BLP? http://www.filippomariabressan.com/en/ It is seems somewhat unusual that any performing artist would want their Wikipedia page deleted. Also has the subject requested their .de and .it articles be deleted? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
VRTS ticket # 2017110310009201. Yes, all three were requested, but I wasn't going to kick it over to the other languages until this discussion was going somewhere. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then support. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to discuss this as a request from the subject of the article, then the primary discussion should be at the Italian Wikipedia since that is the most substantial of the three articles & that the editors there would be likely more familiar with an Italian composer. Personally, I am an opponent of the right to be forgotten, & I think that it is inapplicable to notable people. With Google Books listing about "About 3,500 results" in "Filippo Maria Bressan" - Google Books Search, he is clearly notable & not liking the fact that there's an article in Wikipedia is not justification for taking it down. Otherwise, we might have Donald Trump requesting Wikipedia to delete anything mentioning him ... Peaceray (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a fair comparison, if Trump wanted to remove himself from wikipedia, he need only sign an executive order to achieve it. Wikipedia's policy has always been that private individuals who are low profile can legitimately request their articles to be removed. Yes this person is clearly a good composer, no that does not make high profile, and no that doesn't make him so notable in the public eye that we can't honor his request. Dysklyver 19:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The implication that an it-OTRS agent can, let alone will, speedy-delete a ticket simply because someone asks is laughable. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: The Italian Wikipedia is the eighth largest Wikipeida; please refrain from calling it "some forgotten backwater". After seeing how well the Italian Wikimedia chapter did putting on Wikimania 2016 & their conduct within the movement, I think that is an insult & would ask you to remove your comment.

Just because we write in English & edit the largest language Wikipedia, does not give us authority over other language Wikipedias.

The Italian Wikipedia should get first crack at deciding this because

It is the eighth largest Wikipedia.
It has the most complete & well cited article on Mr. Bressan.
Itailian Wikipedians are much more likely to be familiar with the Italian conductor & therefore will be more authoritative in this debate.

20:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Using a standard activity model, it-wiki has 2233 active editors and en-wiki has 132,425. However, this discussion is about our article here on en-wiki, the Italians don't have to follow our lead, and we don't have to follow theirs. Dysklyver 20:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, meta:List of Wikipedias#1 000 000+ articles indicates 8,000 active editors, & the sixth most in edits overall. Peaceray (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Observation There are two editors for Filippo Maria Bressan articles who tended to be reverted on most of their edits. One was an IP editor on IT, EN, & DE, 2.224.243.55 whose ISP is in Bologna & Jeanfil (@Jeanfil:) in IT &EN, who pretty much only editted Filippo Maria Bressan & Talk:Filippo Maria Bressan, except for the entry at User talk:Jeanfil in which the editor stated I'm Filippo Maria Bressan and don't want to be here on Wipipedia anymore, both in Italian as well as in English and German. Thank you and good bye. If that editor & the subject of the article are indeed the same, then there was no conflict of interest declared heretofore, & that could imply that this person wants the articles deleted because the COI edits didn't stick. If that is the case, then I am definitely opposed in principle. Are we going to reward every COI subject/editor who then decides they don't like their article because of the edits by taking that article down upon their request? Peaceray (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the situation then I am also opposed as a matter of principle. We are not here to delete articles created for malicious purpose by the subject which have been made good. Dysklyver 22:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Public figure, and there is nothing libelous or unfair about the article, and no negative blp concerns. The subject of an article does get get to dictate the contents. Any compromise with letting them do so is in complete opposition to NPOV. The itWP is entitled to its own rules--I do not know if in this respect they are stricter or more permissive, but we go by ours. The appropriate off-wiki response to requests of this sort, is that unless there is a some special reason, we do not do this. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vi scrivo in italiano perché per me è più facile esporre la questione. La voce in inglese, tedesco e in italiano non ha a che fare con l'OTRS precedente perché notevolmente migliorata e modificata. Dell'originale presente nel sito ufficiale di Bressan c'è un testo ormai completamente diverso. Il problema è un altro: il suddetto direttore d'orchestra ha più volte vandalizzato le pagine con utenti anonimi o ha chiamato addirittura altri per rimuovere alcune informazioni che non vuole (data di nascita e insegnamento al conservatorio). Purtroppo queste informazioni sono libere sul web e quindi non violano la privacy. Insomma, si tratta di un capriccio abbastanza surreale di Bressan, se le voci venissero cancellate sarebbe assurdo. Bressan dovrebbe capire che Wikipedia non è una vetrina autopromozionale, gli è stato detto più volte ma non capisce (ha un carattere narcisista che lo porta a dettare legge dove non può). Per me la voce è quindi da mantenere assolutamenteDriante70 (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following quote is a rough translation from Italian. It may have been generated by a computer or by a translator without dual proficiency.

I write to you in Italian because it is easier for me to expose the matter. English, German, and Italian have nothing to do with the previous OTRS because they have been greatly improved and modified. The original on the official website of Bressan is now completely different. The problem is another: the aforementioned orchestra director has repeatedly vandalized the pages with anonymous users or even called others to remove some information they do not want (birth date and teaching at the conservatory). Unfortunately, this information is free on the web and therefore does not violate privacy. In short, this is a pretty surreal whim of Bressan, if voices are erased it would be absurd. Bressan should understand that Wikipedia is not a self-promotional showcase, he has been told several times but he does not understand (he has a narcissistic character that leads him to dictate where he can not). For me the voice is therefore to be kept absolutely

The above is a machine translation from Italian to English via Google Translate. Peaceray (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some pretty harsh words. Granted, the OTRS ticket is largely the same, accusing Driante70 of stalking and bending the truth. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to maintain an encyclopedia, not bend to the will of people who have tried and failed to use Wikipedia for promotion. I have changed my !vote in light of this. Dysklyver 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ora sono accusato pure di stalking, ma avete letto per caso la pagina di discussione di Jeanphil su Wikipedia italiana? Per questo motivo è stato più volte bloccato per atti vandalici. E ora gli altri gli fanno stalking? Non scherziamo, siamo seri... questa storia va avanti da mesi ahimè, è tutto surreale in quanto Bressan vuole che la sua voce rimanga esclusivamente con le parole promozionali tratte dal suo sito, quando ha visto che la voce italiana è stata scremata di tutte le pubblicità (ovvero che fa triathlon e altra fuffa), si è ribellato e non è la prima volta che lo fa sia in rete che di persona (conoscendolo in tutti i due casi)Driante70 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Machine translation) I am now also accused of stalking, but have you read the Jeanphil discussion page on Italian Wikipedia? For this reason it has been blocked several times for vandalism. And now are the others stalking him? Let's not joke, we're serious ... this story goes on for months now, alas, it's all surreal since Bressan wants his voice to stay exclusively with the promotional words from his site when he saw that the Italian voice was skimmed of all advertising (that is, triathlon and other fake) has rebelled and is not the first time it does it online or in person (knowing it in both cases) Primefac (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry but something escapes me: how do you accuse jeanfil of wanting his voice in Wikipedia "to remain exclusively with the promotional words taken from his site", when he asks clearly that the page that concerns him personally is deleted? Strange form of promotion, the cancellation...

The only promotion I see is that one of the conservatory where he teaches, which is indirect advertising.

Even though it may seem strange to most of you, I believe that we must respect the will of a person not to appear on Wikipedia.

Personally don't understand this Taleban doggedness of those who oppose it: there is suspicion that there are motivations

that go beyond mere compliance with the Wikipedia rules.

As far as I am concerned with jeanfil's request.--Musicforawhile (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potremmo dire la stessa cosa sul suo conto, visto che si è iscritto apposta per controbattere... Lo sa quante volte Jeanfil ha reputato stalker altri utenti senza una motivazione valida, anzi con maleducazione ha pure vandalizzato la sua pagina più volte (tutto questo è verificabile dalla cronologia italiana, non sono illazioni). Non mi stupirei che lei sia un utenza multipla di Jeanfil (su Wikipedia Jeanfil ha creato numerose multiple per vandalizzare le voci Jeanphilip, Filippo Bressan) Driante70 (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in case it is unclear the policy is not to remove articles unless there is a good policy reason to do so. And there is none noted here. Dysklyver 18:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies to this situation. This policy does not discuss the concept of the right to be forgotten, because the criteria of notability required for article creation makes the concept moot. The subject of the article is already notable, therefore the right to be forgotten is impossible, & IMHO unethical, to enforce in those situations.

In this situation, I do ask fellow editors to be aware of & to adhere to WP:BLPKINDNESS while at the same time holding true to the pillars, policies, & guidelines of Wikipedia in general & as each language Wikipeda recommends.

Peaceray (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated mentions of the right to be forgotten are not helping. Wikipedia is not affected by such matters. Wikimedia is a US foundation. The ruling and the battle in the EU involving google and the ECJ is not relevant, and not mentioned in policy for obvious reasons, even if the subject was not notable it would not apply. Additionally the translation seems off, "...of wanting his voice in Wikipedia" many references to 'voice', but it is unclear if this is supposed to be 'opinion' or 'article' and it makes a big difference to the meaning of what our esteemed Italian comrades are saying. Dysklyver 20:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Signor User:Musicforawhile come reputa questi atti di vandalismo e di accusa infondate dell'utente Jeanfil il 27 agosto 2017, il 30 settembre 2017, il 7 ottobre 2017? Si possono leggere sulla sua pagina di discussione italiana https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Jeanfil La voce andava bene fino a quando c'era quella promozionale dell'OTRS. Appena è stata aggiunta la sua data di nascita e informazioni che evidentemente non erano gradite (ma che sono rintracciabili in rete e quindi non c'è violazione di privacy), sono incominciati i guai, all'improvviso la voce non poteva più stare su Wikipedia. Ma se uno non vuole esserci che chiede a fare l'OTRS da http://www.studiomusica.net/? Non so se avete letto il "curriculum" ovvero com'era prima la voce (si parlava di triathlon, sport e hobby, di lodi di ogni sorta... tutte informazioni queste davvero per niente enciclopediche e o private, ma che invece andavano bene per il signor Bressan). Ci sono molte incongruenze. Il soggetto è ampiamente enciclopedico. Il fatto che lavori in conservatorio è un dato pubblico e non promozionale (come appare nell'elenco del Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione Italiana in nota n. 1), semmai lo sono i concerti extra con fondazioni private (e, stranamente, queste vanno bene?). Driante70 (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Google Machine translation) Mr. User: Musicforawhile how does this Jeanfil filed for vandalism and unfounded charges on August 27, 2017, September 30, 2017, October 7, 2017? You can read it on its Italian discussion page https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Jeanfil The voice was fine until there was the promotional one of the OTRS. Just added her birth date and information that was obviously not welcome (but that can be traced on the net and so there is no privacy breach), troubles began, suddenly the voice could no longer stay on Wikipedia . But if one does not want to be asking for the OTRS from http://www.studiomusica.net/? I do not know if you have read the "curriculum" or what was the first rumor (it was about triathlon, sports and hobbies, praise of all sorts ... all this really for no encyclopaedia or private, but that they were good for Mr Bressan). There are many inconsistencies. The subject is largely encyclopaedic. The fact that conservatories work is a public and non-promotional issue (as appears in the list of the Italian Ministry of Education in note 1), whether it is extra concerts with private foundations (and, oddly, are these good? ). Driante70 (talk) 8:53 am, Today (UTC-5)

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 Findlay, Ohio. Sandstein 20:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay Police Department (Ohio)[edit]

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

I'd call this an unremarkable organisation, but a speedy was declined. What is ther to say about these boys in blue that cannot be covered in the article on Findlay, Ohio. ...now, if they didn't have a police department, that would be worth an article. TheLongTone (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Nothing in this article tells me that Findlay is notable among 18,000 police departments in the United States. No independent reliable secondary sources. Rhadow (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Findlay, Ohio (and establish a #Government section on that page). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- So I tried copying the text to Findlay, Ohio, The Bushranger, but ‎John from Idegon rejected it. Rhadow (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's because you didn't copy the text, you copied the infobox. I've re-added a section there correctly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG. Specifically, oppose a merge. Nominator stated why - lack of a police department would be encyclopedic, having one, not so much. And Template:Infobox police is really not appropriate in a settlement article, Rhadow. John from Idegon (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You've slightly misread the nominator's statment; that "lack of would be notable" was referring to having an article, not performing a merge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Findlay, Ohio. There's no issue with having information about the PD on the city page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 8 November 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. Sandstein 20:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic blue[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence that this colour actually exists as named, either under the title, or as glas celtig, or as gorm ceilteach. All we do find are Wiki mirror articles. The genesis of the article appears to be that the author has found historical references to Celts dyeing themselves blue, and has invented a so-named colour? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's also added it to Template:Shades of blue; that'll have to be addressed if deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did a quick Google search just now (just before 4: 20 G.M.T. on November 6 2017), and the only hit I got that was unambiguously on the colour was the Wikipedia article. I did get a hit on Amazon to Celtic blue, but this seemed to be on jewellery, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be promotional. Vorbee (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's odd: I just checked again to see that hit and I spotted this, a mention of Celtic blue in relation to the new Star Trek. That would pretty much answer my concern that this colour exist. I'd be happy to withdraw. But that's the only one I can find that's not for the cheese named Celtic Blue. Still, odd to see it used by this Cable.co.uk website, in an article published just weeks ago. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believing in being proactive, I have just left a question at the bottom of the Cable.co.uk page, asking its author about his use of the word Celtic Blue in it, which I hope will appear post-moderation. I doubt I'll get a response, but I strongly suspect he wanted to be able to describe the colour of the Start Trek uniforms and simply found a match on Shades of blue here. I reckon there's a PhD to be had on the influence of Wikipedia errors on modern culture. I'm sure the irony of that online source's title is not lost on !voters here. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps better repurpose. The description of the Britons as painting themselves blue is a genuine quotation from Julius Caesar. As far as I know, there is no collateral evidence to provide a commentary on this. The question of how this quotation should be interpreted is a proper subject of scholarly debate (or speculation). As such we could properly have a WP article discussing the various views on it. The article summarises views quite well. However the present title just will not do. Britons painted blue might do, but would be liable to pick up FRINGE content. Celtic F.C. play in green, so that it cannot refer to them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Woad. That page has a section that is similar to what Peterkingiron is describing. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's interesting to me too is how he's used the infobox color parameters to settle on a rather precise colour model for this shade of blue, even though it doesn't seem to be in any of the sources? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's very obvious - he's simply used a software package to select the RGB colours from any old photo. (that must certainly have been done with his ridiculous Dolphin pink contribution which I've yet to deal with). The more I look into this editor's contributions, the more unreliable and artificial many of them appear to be. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is the method used to pick this color. I was hoping that it was a riddle, that the year 246 BCE had some meaning, but I couldn't find it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of this colour existing. If it doesn't exist, why give it creedence with a WP:REDIRECT? I have cause to be concerned that the page creator is manufacturing imaginary content elsewhere, some of them on colours, of which Boto pink (Dolphin pink) is the most ludicrous, but that's another matter. As is the current SPI. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of good sourcing to establish notability. With respect and good faith, the editor's contributions in this article and others is writing that, I would guess, does not make a lot of sense to the average reader.104.163.155.95 (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've deleted the infobox based on the discussion here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's also on Shades_of_blue#Celtic_blue. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 11 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Doug Weller talk 11:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Imamul Huq[edit]

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

I can find a number of publications by him, a couple of sources quoting him, and a demand by students for his removal[44] and a death threat[45] over an issue this summer. Also, the Bangladesh Academy of Sciences awarded him a gold medal, but I don't know if that is enough on its own. One of the references[46] lists more material but it's not a reliable source except perhaps for matters relating to the university itself. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm going to assume that the award itself is sufficient, although I can't find sources backing its importance. So withdrawing this. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 6 November 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. Borderline speedy for patent nonsense. Sandstein 20:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic swimming system[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, failing to establish the existence of a specific swimming system. No sources confirm this online at all, except a link to a book by the article's creator. I considered blanking the page with a WP:REDIRECT to Human swimming, but I think this would only serve to affirm the author's publication has an element of validity, and I do not see any at this time. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, original research, and borderline nonsense or at least "something I made up one day". The only source for this being "a thing" is the editor's own self-published e-book, so this is basically promotional. A deeper problem, aside from conflict of interest, is that the central claim is essentially farcical. Swimming "as entertainment or just effortless tread" in calm water by using already well-defined swimming techniques, like the various forms of backstroke listed, isn't a "swimming system", it's just typical recreational swimming, found all over the world where bodies of water are. I'm a big ol' fan of lots of genuinely Celtic stuff, but this isn't among them. Might as well define sitting around in pubs/bars with a beer and some friends to be "the Celtic drinking and socializing system", since it too spontaneously arose in the British Isles and north-west coastal Europe, just like this "swimming system" (and all over the rest of the world, just like this "swimming system"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 14:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~While~~ I support deletion I'm not sure that User:Lepota—who has created a number of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR articles of late, it seems to me, in at least two distinct areas—is L.L. Cosmo? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Striking thru comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Until the author completes this sentence: The celtic stroke is ...
Google cannot find Two Swimming Systems: Colchian and Sufi-ryu Suizyutsu plus Celtic swimming system technique on paper or eBook. The rest of the references are a century old. What do we know about swimming now that we didn't then? How to swim 100 m in 0:46.91 instead of 1:05.8. Gimme a break. Rhadow (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
continued -- We are being toyed with here. IP is a SPA, and found (or published) the Amazon offering after I did the search of Amazon in multiple countries two days ago. The sample on Amazon is a work that has not been proofread or spell-checked; I suspect WP is being used to promote a work of dubious quality. I also suspect that the reason the references are so old is that -- if they exist -- they are now in the public domain and were used for a copypasta Kindle book. The author of that book has assembled other ebooks from out-of-copyright works, or bad translations of other work. I vote a Speedy here. Rhadow (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the Nom, I would support Rhadow's recommendation of a speedy delete (and no Redirect, please). My intention was not to out an editor, but I have good reasons, based on other work I've had the privelege to look at, to think that an author is using WP to promote self-published stuff on various esoteric topics. Interesting that the page creator managed to copypaste a large amount from Amazon before it was published. I won't bother deleting the WP:COPYVIO as I don't envisage the article surviving for very long. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i found this book, published on 6 November 2017 with 200 pp. The Swimming Systems: Colchian and Sufi-ryu Suizyutsu plus Celtic swimming system technique it has hundreds of strokes, as well as swimming systems, interesting Sufi-ryu Suizyutsu system of Nihon Eiho (Japanese traditional swimming styles) and description of: Yoko-oyogi, Hitoe-noshi, Futae-noshi, Morote-noshi, Ryowa-noshi, Katanukite, Tsugite-noshi, Onukite, Nukite-noshi, Hayanukite, Hira-noshi, Konukite, Kenoshi established in 2014, as well as others. Cheers! having good fun!--178.223.56.246 (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete author of aforementioned book seems to have a role in the AFD article. Goggle still has a cache conecting them. It's an arcane subject for which there are no other sources. It's hilarious that, as stated by sock IP just above, a book was published to support the article a couple days ago! Add article to comedic subjects category? Also maybe a good idea to warn/block user on WP:NOTHERE basis.104.163.155.95 (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note three of the four sources added by the IP above turn out to be fakes. The sources exist, but the word "celtic" does nto appear in any of the books based on Google searches in the digitzed books. I tried other words as well, which worked find in Google books "search within the book" function... it's just Celtic that does not return results. IP is undoubtedly article author, and should be blocked for adding bad sources.104.163.155.95 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick & Counting 5![edit]

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

(Prod was removed without explanation) Unsure if this is "blatant" enough for speedy deletion, but this is quickly identified as a hoax article with references and text borrowed from OutDaughtered. Dook9 with embellishments by User:173.92.101.58 has used the same method to create Lights, Camera!? (under PROD at time of writing) out of Star (TV series), and the already deleted Family (Season 1) and Family (Season 2) out of other genuine articles : Noyster (talk), 11:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 11:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could be speedy as an obvious hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: - why did you relist this? power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After seven days I've added relist.Here was my mistake.I've added relist without checking the article.This article is definitely hoax.now I've withdrawn the relist.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously hoax this article.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 13 November 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 Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fimir[edit]

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

Interesting but non-notable topic that doesn't show stand-alone WP:NOTABILITY. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. BOZ (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious merge to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. Just one of a thousand inappropriate fiction- and gaming-related fancruft article splits. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 14:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Artw (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 12 November 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. And move to Political prisoners in Francoist Spain, and rescope accordingly. Sandstein 09:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political prisoners in Spain[edit]

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

POV fork of 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis; and Coatrack (using the neutral "Political prisoners in...", and a brief background on Franco, to create an article about the 2017 jailing of Catalan independence supporters. Scolaire (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nomination refers to this version of the article. The alternative version is still a coatrack, using it instead to talk about what a wonderful democracy Spain is. Scolaire (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I share Scolaire's concerns on both versions, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The article topic itself is notable, and we have several parallel articles for other countries - e.g. Political prisoners in Yugoslavia, Political prisoners in Saudi Arabia, Political prisoners in Syria as well as a category "Category:Political imprisonment by country". I don't see how this article should be a POVFORK of 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis (as Franco prisoners won't fit there, nor will any long-term imprisonments from the current situation should they develop). Franco era (pre 1977) imprisonments are definitely notable. As for the current Catalan situation - I agree this shouldn't be the main focus of the article, though it might increase in scope later (e.g. the international arrest warrant for Puigdemont is relevant, however he hasn't been imprisoned in Spain as of yet).Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As stated, it is a POV fork of 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis. This is clear from the original version. Nobody is interested in writing an encyclopaedic and neutral article on the general topic, only in POV-warring. Deletion is the proper action. Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the original version of this article had severe POV issues. However the subject itself it notable - mainly due to Franco era prisoners. 2017 should be kept out of this article until the chips falls (and we actually see RS referring to the current situation in 2017 as a case of political imprisonment).Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated above, there are already a number of articles titled "Political prisoners in ...." including Political prisoners in Saudi Arabia and Political prisoners in Syria. I started the article 'Political prisoners in Spain' because there is no doubt that Spain had a relatively recent period during which large numbers of political prisoners were held, during the Franco era, and there were claims being made that the recent jailing of two political activists marked a return to Spain jailing political opponents. Unfortunately, some editors refuse to accept that an article about Political prisoners in Spain could ever be valid as Spain is a democracy. My intention in starting this article was to provide an article where relevant, sourced information is presented so that readers can learn more about this issue. It is sad that some editors are repeatedly deleting sourced information to which they object - that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The article has now been proposed for deletion which, I suppose, is the ultimate way to remove material which editors find politically unacceptable. As a relatively recent recruit to the Wikipedia family, I find this all quite sad. Lin4671 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Now supporting move:WP:POVFORK from Human rights in Spain trying to push the WP:FRINGE theory that there are political prisoners in the 17th most democratic country in the world (according to the EIU Democracy Index with no credible sources supporting the fact - clear breach of WP:NPOV. There are political activists who claim there are political prisoners in Spain, the US, Britain, Germany, France and every single democratic country in the world. However, this is an encyclopedia and WP:COATRACK political activism on the Catalan question does not have a place in Wikipedia. Specific politicians being arrested for breaking laws of democratic countries is not the same as political prisoners. In Spain a lot of politicians are arrested precisely due to the country's strong separation of powers as a highly democratic country - recently the president of Madrid region Ignacio González González and in the past the interior minister José Barrionuevo. Would we have an article on Political prisoners in the United Kingdom over Islamists such as Anjem Choudary being jailed? No. If this editor wants a section on allegations of there being political prisoners in Spain, a section in Human rights in Spain or in any article related to the 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis is the adequate place to explain these allegations, not creating a POV fork pretending it is an undisputable fact by creating this article. Such a view is not mainstream and is unsupported by any credible source.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the problem, the article is mostly about pre-1977 Spain which was highly dictatorial and had a whole bunch of political prisoners. If the bit about " accusations of the existence "political prisoners" have been made by certain political parties " if that section is really a POVFORK FRINGE POV COATRACK THING, then by all means remove that section, but there is still plenty of topic left. Dysklyver 16:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note above. The nomination refers to this version of the article, where the pre-1977 stuff is used as a coatrack to hang an article on 2017 Catalonia and the arrests there. The alternative version (it has been changed twice already today) simply changes it into an "isn't Spain wonderful?" article. No attempt has been made to write an encyclopaedic and neutral article. Scolaire (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- The present article is now not a POVFORK or COATRACK, being quite different from the Catalan crisis article. The difficulty is with deciding who is a political prisoner (i.e. imprisoned for his political beliefs) and who is imprisoned as guilty of terrorist or merely of criminal offences. I think it is fair to say that the post-Civil War prisoners were political, though many may have been imprisoned for fighting on the losing side. I suspect that the Basque separatists were imprisoned for terrorism, not peaceful campaigning; but I may be wrong. The offence of the Catalan leaders is clearly political, though it may be dressed up in charges of embezzlement for improper use of state funds for the referendum. However so far the independence parties have tended to be calm in the face of some very aggressive policing; clearly this is a political issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you source that statement? Or are we going to move Wikipedia into the era of post-truth?Peterkingiron

Re-voting below: I refute any assertion that I was doing anything that is "post-truth", though I may have been expressing an opinion as to Possible future events. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~now supporting Move to Political prisoners in Francoist Spain despite my near-constant frustration (see the page's history and talk pages) with frequent bad editing practices on both sides of this dispute, and my view that the article has frequently veered deep into WP:COATRACK territory, the subject itself is notable because of the history of political prisoners during the Franco era. What needs to be kept off the page is information warring related to modern events in Catalonia. All of this should be restricted to no more than a paragraph.--Calthinus (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. while the page was previously an anti-Spanish COATRACK, it's now loaded with [questionably sourced PEACOCK defensively bragging about Spain's impeccable democracy]. I find this to also be unacceptable. This page doesn't need deletion, it needs guardianship by honest editors committed to a high quality and neutral encyclopedia. Although if the problems seem intractable, I may have to switch my stance to delete.--Calthinus (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Calthinus You have not addressed the sourcing issue. Is there any credible source which states there are political prisoners in Spain? If not, this page is simply propaganda. Sonrisas1 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are copious sources on political imprisonment in Franco's time - and Wikipedia article don't cover the current status, but rather the subject throughout history - e.g. Political prisoners in Yugoslavia covers a dissolved country. Regarding political prisoners in the current Catalan crisis, there actually are quite a few RS dealing with this - e.g. Bloomberg Guardian Washington Post - but frankly for the most part it is WP:TOOSOON beyond a brief mention here. If Spanish authorities persist in holding these politicians for a significant period of time and we have various human right orgs and RSes calling them political prisoners (as opposed to jailed politicians) - then it should be increased. In any event this article meets GNG due to Franco regardless of current events.Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Then it is a POV fork from Human rights in Spain or Francoist Spain. The original intention is patent from the editing history of this article. A place to dump propaganda specifically related to the Catalan (and eventually Basque) political issues. I do not see any similar article about countries which, like Spain, are categorized by the EUI Democracy Index as "Full Democracies" (United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Canada etc.) or even about those categorized as "Flawed democracies" (United States, France, Italy etc.) I would also note that in terms of civil liberties Spain is rated 9.41, same as Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and the Nordic countries and higher than the United Kingdom (9.12). Wikipedia does not need this - it is pure propaganda. If for some total failure in Wikipedia's capacity to enforce its own rules due to high presence of activist editors, this page was not deleted, the article name has to be changed to something which is not inherently POV. This article does not add value to the project. It having not yet been deleted is literally a disgrace to Wikipedia. I also not that you implicitly accept in your vote/comment that no RS exist supporting the article.' Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Icewhiz I don't want to enter into a discussion on the content but in the light of your grandiose statement about how it is evident (to you) these politicians will eventually be declared political prisoners by NGOs/RS etc if they are not released, I feel the need to respond. We cannot keep an inherently POV article from being deleted based on your hopes that in the future sources will vindicate your erroneous beliefs. You are voting based on your strong ideological bias in the Catalan question. You don't seem to understand basics of how the law works in democratic countries. In such systems the law applies to everyone equally. There are no exceptions. If Catalan politicians (who have already been released on bail by the way) are convicted by a Spanish judge of committing a criminal offense they may (they should) serve jail time according to the Spanish penal code. This will not be a political imprisonment. It will be an imprisoned politician, as there are dozens in the country. In Spain as in other EU countries, following a political agenda (including independence) is not a criminal offense. If not, Juan José Ibarretxe would have been arrested for attempting (legally) to secede from Spain with the Ibarretxe Plan in the mid-2000s. If not, the members of the independence parties who are in the Spanish parliament such as Gabriel Rufián who are being paid 10,000 euros a month by the Spanish tax-payers for abusing Spain and Spaniards daily, would be in jail. The Spanish courts prosecute or jail dozens of politicians a year for corruption - mostly members of the ruling party Partido Popular. If there is any flaw in Spain's democracy it is that the state prosecutor has historically given orders to go soft on corrupt Catalan leaders such as Jordi Pujol to facilitate the formation of government in exchange for political favors aimed at nation-building. Then it is only when a corruption scandal affects a nationalist party do we hear screams of "Political Prisoners" such as Oriol Pujol. Coming to this article and voting keep not based on Wikipedia rules but only your own overwhelming bias and ignorance of the topic at hand is not called for. Focus on Wikipedia rules, not on your own misconceptions. Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misread my comment - which was conditional with an if. At present it is clearly TOOSOON. If these people are held for some time AND there are enough sources calling them political prisoners - then the article should reflect this in the future. This may or may not happen. Political imprisonment during the Franco era was a real issue that could definitely be treated as a standalone here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz Perhaps I did misread it. No one denies there was repression in Francoist Spain. But the title of the article strongly implies current repression. Former victims of Francoist dictatorship, such as (Catalan) victim of Francoism Carles Vallejo, have publicly denounced the use of the term political prisoners referring to the leaders of Omnium and ANC.http://www.foroporlamemoria.info/2017/10/entrevista-a-carles-vallejo-preso-politico-del-franquismo/ Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonrisas1 you also did pretty awfully misrepresent my position. You might note that I have been consistently removing material that is not about the Francoist era from the page, tagged it with the recentism tag, and so on. As for the OR claims well, Icewhiz responded well to that. Of course there are multiple points of view on the issue. I don't think Wikipedia should tackle that at hte present time-- which is why I am now suggesting we officially make the page about hte Franco era (see below). What say to you to that proposal? --Calthinus (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I did I apologize Calthinus. I think your proposal is fine. In fact it is surprising there is no section on political repression in Francoist Spain. There should be.Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, feel free to put the support in bold. Cheers :), --Calthinus (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. It seems a nonsense, unbalanced page, without historical context and intended for POV about recent events. We should not create such poor pages in Wikipedia, pages as this one are just a shame. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 12:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move page to "Political prisoners in Francoist Spain", per Calthinus. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 17:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm switching my position -- Move page to "Political prisoners in Francoist Spain". On the one hand, I have come to agree with Scolaire that salvation is not likely for this page in its present form. However, as I have mentioned elsewhere, and as Icewhiz has brought up, the topic is quite relevant with regards to Francoist Spain. As for political prisoners in the present day, it's a mix of POV and CRYSTAL at best and a bit too soon to have a page on those. Therefore, I recommend we make the fact that the page should actually be about the Franco era official, move the page, and delete all material pertaining to the current Catalonia crisis. Thoughts? --Calthinus (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move, per Calthinus. Also, delete material on the Basque Country and Arnaldo Otegi; sources only say that he sees himself, or is seen by supporters, as a political prisoner. Note that, as nominator, I am hereby changing my !vote. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
switch vote to Move Scolaire, for the record, I added the Otegi bit (surprisingly). I thought it was relevant since its when we first started hearing about "Political prisoners" discourse in democratic Spain (Pablo Iglesias, leader of Podemos for example, referred to him as a political prisoner). But anyhow, I support Calthinus and your proposal. Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, Lin4671, Dysklyver, Peterkingiron, we seem to be moving towards a consensus on moving the article to "Political prisoners in Francoist Spain". Your contributions came before this was proposed. Would you consider switching to support for a page move? Scolaire (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond keeping the article, I'm neutral, at present, between the two names.Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally supportive of such a move, the Francoist period is the most relevant time period for looking at political prisoners in Spain. I will note that in effect we are saying there will also be such articles as Political prisoners during the Spanish inquisition and Political prisoners in 16th and 17th century Spain and possibly others, but this is no bad thing. I will note there will probably be attempts to create Political prisoners in Catalonia and other attempts to get this recent Catalonia POV issue back out there. Dysklyver 14:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, under this suggested paradigm, all info about the modern crisis will be systematically removed and restrained from the page. If they want to cover it, it would necessitate creating a new article. Perhaps that may be appropriate in the future, depending on how things unfold. For now, it is too soon. As for the inquisitions and etc, nobody seems interested in discussing those but if they did there is plenty of room for material on either their respective pages or a new page. I note that when this page was created, it was created only to cover modern events-- the Franco stuff was added by myself and others who came later.--Calthinus (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right Calthinus, it is too soon to make this kind of affirmations. It is important, for example, the position of Amnesty International that, despite considering the charges of sedition and prison excessive [47], does not consider them political prisoners [48] --BallenaBlanca

(Talk) 22:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dysklyver understood all that. It's implicit in his answer. Given his edit summary, we can take it that he is in favour of your proposal. Scolaire (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently neutral on the name - but I will note that if this one moves to Franco and (as it seems quite possible, but not certain - we wouldn't have to have a consensus they are political prisoners just enough sources alleging they are) a separate Catalonian political prisoners of Spain meets notability guidelines - then the latter would place the Catalan/Spain political situation in much greater prominence that such prisoners would receive in an across-era article (where too much focus on them would unbalanced).Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's unclear I do think it is a good idea to change the title, and as Calthinus correctly pointed out, this would resolve the problems with the article. I have no doubt the Political prisoners in Catalonia issue will settle at some point and we can consider the merits of such an article then (or sooner if POV warriors insist). Dysklyver 16:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Political prisoners in Francoist Spain", per Calthinus and others. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "Political prisoners in Francoist Spain", per others and purge of material on other subjects. At present the article is tackling two other subjects. Imprisonment by Spain of Basque activists and Trials of Catalan independence activists. I think both these are NPOV titles, which avoid the contentious question of whether a crime is political. The prosecuting authorities will invariably say that it is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Peterkingiron, I may have understood your rationale/explanation incorrectly, but you seem to agree with the growing consensus, so I suggest you change your vote to Move?Sonrisas1 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He said "Keep as Political prisoners in Francoist Spain", which means exactly the same thing. Scolaire (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, Ill change his bold so it is clear. Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have left my !vote above as keep, but I am assuming at this point it will be renamed, and fully support the rename. Dysklyver 14:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By all means treat my vote as Rename and purge. However, there is also post-Franco content in the article and I was musing on what to do with that and how we might find a home for that material with a NPOV title. Describing Basque terrorists and Catalan activists as political prisoners to adopt a POV on their treatment. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like full consensus. I suggest close and rename.Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the closing admin may at their discretion want to move protect the page and/or this existing title. Dysklyver 11:30, 12 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth M.R. Jaipuria Schools[edit]

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

Although this seems like it should be notable, I couldn't find any evidence it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these groups in India are the roughly equivalent to US school districts in that they provide organisation and management to a group of schools. School district articles are also routinely used as a repository for information on schools such as middle and primary schools that are not individually notable. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. As a start, we have these reliable sources,that meet WP:GNG [49][50][51][52][53]. Just Chilling (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-But improve ,Sources given by editor above are reliable and provide notability-To ping me add ((ping|Force Radical)) OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Manishkanojia, you have edited Wikipedia since this discussion started, can you please comment here? Would you be able to help improve the article, especially adding sources? Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very hard to decipher what it is, so I went and read this which did not help much, it appears to be a umbrella group for primary and secondary schools in Lucknow India. What I seem to have found, is that it is part of Seth M.R.Jaipuria School, Lucknow, a really good school in India, this sort of makes me compare it to Cambridge, I assume they are supplying full teaching and examination support packages like Cambridge does. Indian schools are defined by administrative area, most countries do not have US style School Districts, and this is not one. That being said, I assume it is notable. I note their website says they have been "Featured in the Huffington Post" here and "First Indian School to be featured by GGSC, University of California, Berkeley", this 4 Indian education awards, various probably notable alumni, some news reports [54] [55] [56] [57] all the stuff which makes me think it could be notable. Dysklyver 16:54, 6 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (Europe, Middle East and Africa)[edit]

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

Hoax. Source #1 indicates channel was launched as 'Initial Public Offering' channel. Initial Public Offering is a business term regarding the first issuance of stock on a public exchange. It also indicated that the Italy Fox Kids channel launched first. None of the reliable sources in the article have any thing to do with an EMEA channel. Spshu (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Source #1 indicates the launch of a pan-European channel in 1999, and a separate Italian Fox Kids channel in 2000. It does not say the Italian variant was launched first. Source #2 indicates the expansion of the pan-regional feed to Turkey in May 2000. "Our Central & Eastern European channel service was extended successfully to Turkey in May 2000 on Digiturk, Turkey's first digital satellite platform, and shortly after on Turkish Telecom's cable system, in July 2000. This channel service has subsequently been extended to cover other Turkish speaking countries including Azerbaidjan and Kazakhstan." That same source also explicitly says the launch of the channel, not of some stock on a public exchange. "Operating expenses before non-recurring charges of $1.8 million increased by 12% on the back of new channel launches in Italy and Turkey, a full year of technical costs for our Central & Eastern European service which launched in April 1999 and through investment in our new online & interactive division." Source #3 indicates the launch of the pan-European channel in the MENA region via a dedicated subfeed on November 2000. "Also in November 2000, we launched a new channel service for the Middle East (excluding Israel) via the Star Select bouquet, available exclusively on the Orbit satellite platform. The geographical coverage of this channel includes Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen." How can this channel be a hoax if there are enough references to begin with? Taking into account these are direct archives from Fox Kids Europe. --Bankster (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again Source 1 doesn't indicate only channel launches, it indicates the corporate history: Fox Kids Europe 2003 Annual Report: "1999 November. Initial Public Offering". Click through to see that an Initial public offering has to do with stock. It says nothing about an "Europe, Middle East and Africa" (EMEA) channel, just an Italian one. The UK channel was first launched in October 1996 per the 2008 Annual Report page 16 (doesn't list an EMEA channel). Source 2 confirming a "Central & Eastern European" channel doesn't confirm an EMEA channel as I said before, not about an IPO stock issuance. RE: source 3, the launch of a new Middle Eastern channel for the MENA (Middle Eastern & North Africa) region that Jetix Europe operates in doesn't indicate an EMEA channel. There is no mention of "pan-European channel in the MENA region via a dedicated subfeed on November 2000." in that source. It is a hoax because none of the sources support an EMEA channel and should not even be in the article. Spshu (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Check again. I didn't say the EMEA channel was launched first, I said that the EMEA channel was actually launched. The 2008 Annual Report at page 16 even says so: Central and Eastern Europe. Date launched: April 1999. Source 2 confirms the existence of the CEE channel, which expanded its operations in Turkey on May 2000, thus stopped being a solely CEE feed but a Pan-European one, since it included Russia, the CIS countries, Romania, Bulgaria, the Adriatic nations and Turkey at that instance. It makes sense by this point to be called a Pan-Euro feed, it is connected. Even the Jetix financial report PDF from 2008 confirms it: Turkey and the Middle East. Date launched: April 2000. The most reasonable argument for the Pan-Euro feed expansion to the Middle East is the cite from Source 3: Also in November 2000, we launched a new channel service for the Middle East. It doesn't mention Turkey, and that's why there is a Turkish/ME section in the Jetix 2008 reports instead of two different sections addressing both regions. This happens because of two issues: a) the Pan-European feed expanded from Turkey to the Middle East, thus turning into a EMEA feed, and b) a split happens in the EMEA feed by March 2004 prior to the Jetix rebrand, which led to the creation of two feeds from the EMEA one: the Central and Eastern European feed, covering CIS and the Balkan countries, and the MEA feed, covering Turkey and the Middle East. The article is called Disney XD (Europe, Middle East and Africa) since the Turkish/ME feed expanded to the Balkan countries in late-2009 before the Jetix rebrand to Disney XD, and the entrance to the African market via satellite TV thanks to South African provider DStv in 2011. It is not a hoax. --Bankster (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 6 November 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. Sandstein 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonino Mango di Casalgerardo[edit]

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

Apparently insufficient notability to justify keeping this article created by globally-locked long-term nuisance editor Alec Smithson. Mango's books have been cited, but I've not found any in-depth coverage of his life or work – or indeed any coverage at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a brief entry for him in Enciclopedia storico-nobiliare italiana by Vittorio Spreti. Mind you, the Spreti article was also created by Smithson but Spreti does get a brief mention in Enciclopedia Italiana [58]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Another brief mention in here but I don't think that's enough. Galobtter (talk) 15:51, 13 November 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. Not verifiable. That'senough reason to delete withotu considering broader issues at this point DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1882 Hamline Pipers football team[edit]

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

Not notable, no sources found that go beyond the season existed - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. This is part of a family of articles under 1882 college football season. Whether they all should be kept as part of a "[year] [college] football team" article tree for all college football seasons is something that probably should be discussed, but sniping one article when the rest aren't is something that really should be avoided. So this should be closed and a discussion started at the relevant WikiProject about the desire, or lack thereof, for this entire family of articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that AfDing one by one is not ideal. A discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football would be great. I would like to see some basic guidelines for notabililty be applied to new article creation. Note that the project has a drive to create season articles for every season for every major college football team. Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign If there is significant coverage in RS, great, create away. But the 1882 Hamline article is an example of what should not be created. Since it was the first season the team played, it should be merged into Hamline Pipers football. In fact, in most cases, merging the stub into a season article or the team's general page would be best. But there will still be some on-the-fence articles that need to be discussed whether they stay as stand-alone articles on their own merits. So I hope someone at the project would start this discussion. They have done great work, I just think some have been overzealous to create new articles that aren't notable. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have nominated Template:Hamline Pipers football navbox for deletion as well. There is certainly no reason to create templates for teams that have zero likelihood of any individual season articles written. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 23:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hamline Pipers football (or Hamline University#Athletics). Hamline is a small liberal arts college. This is the first season article created for a Hamline football team. I am unable to find coverage that would support this article. I think the best suggestion at present would be to merge the very limited content here into the parent article which is itself very sparse. Cbl62 (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Merge and redirect to Hamline Pipers football. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 02:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One other significant point: According to the source cited in the article, the Hamline team in 1882 played association football, i.e., soccer rather than American football. Thus, the article's assertion that the team represented the school in the 1882 college football season (i.e., American football) appears to be incorrect. Cbl62 (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There literally is no content. "A Honey jar is a jar that holds honey." That's about where we are with this piece. I don't know whether a two game season by an obscure college was covered in the press either. Doubtful. Carrite (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TRIVCOV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no deadline. Top level program in the sport at the time, we typically keep single-season articles for such programs and I see no reason to make an exception here. let it bloom.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: Two issues with your comments. First, what leads you to say that Hamline was a top level program in the sport at the time? According to the main Hamline article, the school had a total of 113 students in the fall of 1880, an enrollment smaller than most urban high schools and hardly an indicator of a top level program. Second and perhaps more important, the source cited in the 1882 season article (here) shows that Hamline wasn't even playing American football in 1882, but rather "association football", i.e., soccer. Accordingly, if this article were to be kept, shouldn't it be renamed "1882 Hamline Pipers soccer team" or "1882 Hamline Pipers association football team"? Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the NCAA didn't even exist yet, and professional football didn't exist either. But perhaps I'm confused... is this a gridiron football team or another style?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the NCAA did not exist in 1882, but that doesn't make a team representing a small school with 113 students "a top level program." As for your query, and per the only source provided in the article (see here), Hamline played association football (i.e., soccer) in 1882, not gridiron football. Cbl62 (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or delete) -- I would have expected college sport to be at the NN level, certainly not deserving seasonal articles: If we have this sort of thing at all, it should be limited to major universities, and probably only to an era when games were often televised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On the first part, expecting college sport (particularly Collegiate football) to be non-notable is something I have a hard time comprehending, on the middle, it seems like that would be a good way to weight our coverage, and on the last, pretty much the definition of WP:RECENTISM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Hamline Pipers. This article has a sub-section on sporting life at Hamline Pipers, which is currently on the men's basketball team, and the article on Hamline Pipers' football team could be merged with the article. Vorbee (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Many apologies - I should have typed Hamline University. Vorbee (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by proposer. I can't believe noone has cited this and/or I didn't look it up before this. WP:NSEASONS is the standard for notability of sports seasons. Since it say "A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable" (emphasis in original), I would say that argues very strongly that the 1882 season of the Hamline Pipers is not notable. I'm increasingly favoring deleting 1882 plus a merge and redirect of Hamline Pipers football to Hamline Pipers. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 03:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete all of these 1800s football season articles are excessive detail in my opinion and should be merged to a topic more reasonable for an encyclopedia article. However, on this one, the only reference says that it is an "association game of foot-ball" team, more akin to soccer; and there's no other content. This is not verifiable in its present form and is likely not a notable topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hamline Pipers football or another relevant article. This topic definitely does not warrant its own article. EMachine03 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally, I would say WP:ATD argues for a merge somwehere, but there's no content in the current article to merge. So, delete, with no prejudice against adding information about this to some appropriate article when it becomes available, but unless something drastic changes, I can't see this ever being a stand-alone article. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 14 November 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. apparent consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trude von Molo[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor Quis separabit? 08:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, an article on von Molo has been in the german wp since 2007 with no apparent issues. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hi Rms125a@hotmail.com, so are you suggesting that the films von Molo were in are not notable or that her roles were not significant (point no. 1 of WP:NACTOR)? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple : I am suggesting that the totality of her career (9 films between 1930 and 1933, per IMDb) does not meet the notability threshold. You are, of course, free to disagree. Yours. Quis separabit? 18:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification, cheers. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not seeing why this is at AfD. Notable topic. Unscintillating (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a leading actress in multiple films is generally a very good clue to a person being notable. The films were not produced in English and are old, but neither of those are things that would affect notability. The article needs work, yes, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lead actress in multiple films, good coverage of the Mona Lisa film in the US. I imagine there are plenty of German sources if this kind of coverage was available in US. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the German article in 1987 she was awarded the Filmband in Gold prize for her "durable and outstanding work in German film". That's a pretty sure sign of enduring notability. I suggest a speedy keep. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 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. Sandstein 09:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Misra[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Being an assistant editor is not sufficient, chief editor is required (criterion 8). None of the societies or academies he is member of is known for being very selective (criterion 3). No significant impact of any kind (criterion 1) and so on for the other criteria. Muhandes (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be far WP:TOOSOON for this postdoc to pass WP:PROF. The article itself is also overly promotional and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a COI involved. – Joe (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Deletion Request He is actively engaged in community neuro-epidemiology and written the papers in Cambridge University Press publications featured as best practice models. Followed by American Psychiatric Association, Dana Foundation etc for social contribution for Mental Health Awareness. Bwjones88 (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Indian Academy of Neurosciences" is a club anyone can join for a subscription fee; membership is not any particular honor. Only one of his publications has any citations, far too little to pass WP:PROF#C1. No other evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein Fails WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 13 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gigya[edit]

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

SwisterTwister blanked and redirected with the rationale "Not actually significant to satisfy WP:SPIP, WP:Not advocate also applies". (diff)

Stickee undid this saying "make an AfD instead of quasi-deletion through redirect". (diff)

I happen to agree with SwisterTwister and as a procedural point I'd like to remind Stickee that users are allowed to blank-and-redirect articles. DrStrauss talk 15:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a promotionalism with at best borderline notability. I would not make the redirect to SAP--I do not think, it necessary to make a redirect for every company they acquire. In practice disputes over this tend nowadays to come to AFD, which I think is a better place than the previous more obscure places. It was not wrong for ST to redirect; it was not wrong for Stickee to ask that this be brought here. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As DGG explains, the nomination here is a violation of deletion policy, which leads to violations of WP:PRESERVE in content disputes. Perhaps a better answer is AfEP, Articles for editing policy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meet WP:GNG For example [59]--Shrike (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to satisfy WP:CORP, with multiple third party refs in the article, and provided by Shrike. Stickee (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worldwide company with sources to verify notability in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 13 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit Pioulard[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, no third-party sources. More coverage found of his sustaining an injury from a fall in 2016 than of his music. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure where nom was looking for sources - even a cursory WP:BEFORE turns up loads. [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], etc. etc. Chubbles (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable via a multitude of coverage. Just a quick search also found [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in multiple reliable sources, as evidenced above. Subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. gongshow talk 10:57, 9 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bissonnette[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, Google search turned up third-party sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author Keep several albums on Kranky substantiates WP:MUSIC. WP:BEFORE would have turned up plenty of hits - e.g., [75], [76], [77], [78]. Chubbles (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First three pages of Google results include [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. WP:BEFORE does not appear to have been followed. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a Google search and personally did not find anything notable. Anyway, the second "keep" vote merely repeats the sources listed by the article author, not to mention AllMusic is already cited in the article but doesn't automatically establish notability, as anyone can submit an artist biography. thequietus.com and tinymixtapes don't appear to be viable sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic doesn't automatically establish notability; nobody ever claimed it did. But it is a reliable source with editorial control - anyone can submit an artist bio, but they are selective in which artists they publish (editor-written) bios for, and they review albums like a magazine does. The Quietus and Tiny Mix Tapes are both major third-party review sites; WP:ALBUMS's list does not identify all possible usable album sources (which it says at the top, explicitly), and The Quietus is actually on that list. Chubbles (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'd never heard of either one of them until just recently. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:MUSICBIO as his works have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources, as shown by the above sources. gongshow talk 10:54, 9 November 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 Brookfield, Connecticut#Education. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whisconier Middle School[edit]

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

Unremarkable middle school. Middle schools typically don't receive coverage on Wikipedia unless significantly discussed in independent reliable sources per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I attempted to restore redirect [84] but this was reverted [85]. I am not in the mood for an edit war either (as was stated here [86]). Sources are not independent, or are only passing mentions, and are very local coverage. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. The editor working on this page does not seem to understand reliable sourcing or why this should remain a redirect. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brookfield, Connecticut#Education as is our normal procedure for primary schools that do not have indpendent notability - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brookfield, Connecticut#Education per standard procedure for non notable schools, and protect the redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am just confused as to why this page should be deleted, when pages such as these belong under the Connecticut school stubs category. If what is being described here are reasons to delete a school-based article, then it seems as if every school listed under this category should be deleted.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Bearing in mind WP:OTHERSTUFF...a lot of those are high schools, and high schools are generally presumed notable and would thus be kept. Primary, elementary and middle, schools are not generally presumed notable and thus are by custom redirected to "City/District#Education". But yes, probably 98% of the primary schools in that category should be redirects, not articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 7 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus (record producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical information in secondary sources. Sources cited in the article are primary source interviews, or make trivial mention. The article states: "Amadeus has produced for over sixty artist thus far, ranging from Jennifer Lopez, French Montana, Trey Songz, Chris Brown, 50 Cent, Justin Bieber, Fabolous, T.I, Young Jeezy, Tyga, Keyshia Cole, Wale, Busta Rhymes, just to name a few." However, "Amadeus" in not mentioned on any of those articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another bad attempt at promoting a non-notable individual in the music industry. WP:NOTINHERITED. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:58, 6 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flaer (band)[edit]

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

Potentially fails WP:BAND. Getting to an intermediate stage in Eurovision doesn't confer automatic notability, I think. At any rate, the article is promotional and lacking in sources so WP:TNT applies. DrStrauss talk 15:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. Renata (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, purely promotional and poorly written. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has to be the worst wikipedia entry I have read in a long long time. Full of subjective and flattering statements. Full of grammar and spelling mistakes. Needs sources and linking. Saul "benqish" Davis 9 November 2017 (UTC)

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. postdlf (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic Martyrology for February[edit]

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

This appears to have been dumped here all the way back in 2007 along with Eastern (Byzantine) Catholic Martyrology for January (also included in this nomination). It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a liturgical list. I have a feeling it's a copyvio from the source, but the source is now dead and archive.org isn't working for me for some reason so I can't confirm. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure that COPY-VIO need be a problem. WP has a lot of lists. If I have a concern it is that a lot are the feasts of saints and martyrs who (as yet have) no WP article. That need not be a problem as one function of lists is to identify missing articles that are needed. I would add that a couple of red-links appear to be the result of typos. On the other hand, if we have such lists we should have twelve of them. I suspect there will be equivalent lists for the Catholic Church and possibly the Anglican or others. These should survive or be removed together. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the article while assembling a "list of lists of martyrs", so to speak, and didn't see any equivalent Catholic list aaaaand now literally having typed that it's occurred to me that it didn't occur to me at the time to search by calendar of saints vs. calendar of martyrology and that's why I didn't find anything useful. I feel genuinely dim now, to be honest.

Okay: having done a better search, it appears that all this information is better presented in a series of articles that are linked at Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar. Those articles are organized by the day not the month and are exhaustive, accurate, and referenced. Rather than deletion, I think it might be better to redirect these articles to "Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar" so people can find the most complete amount of information possible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 6 November 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. Based on the discussion here, closing this as delete would not be unreasonable, but I'm going to go with NC, largely to allow the discussion at WT:WikiProject Chess#Notability of chess players to resolve itself. Once that discussion is closed, feel free to re-nominate this for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romesh Weerawardane[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand the fact that the article needs more clarification and I accept your proposal for deletion. But I have to say that the data about Weerawardane Romesh prevailed in Wikidata for about 3-4 years ago. [87]. I am in definite confusion. Abishe (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan 1234: Citing WP:NSPORTS is not particularly useful here as chess is conspicuous by its absence from this guideline. Do you have another rationale? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines. Considering we have had articles survive on Wikipedia for 8 years with no sources at all, surviving 3-4 years means nothing. Wikipedia has a crisis of too many articles to monitor with our current level of participation in editing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I can ascertain, there are four grades of World Chess Federation (FIDE) titles: Grandmasters (players with a rating greater than 2,500, of which there are at least 1,400 players with this title), International Masters (players with a rating between 2400 and 2500, with over 3,000 players with this title), FIDE Master (players with ratings of 2300 or more, for which there are over 5,500 players) and Candidate Masters (players with ratings of 2200 or more). Once achieved, these titles are generally held for life. I personally can not see a case to infer automatic notability on player who is just an International Master. The FIDE rankings currently have Weerawardane as the 47,729th player in the world and 28th player in Sri Lanka. Whilst the FIDE records indicate that he became an International Master in 2013 I can't find any reference to the claim that he was the 'first' IM in Sri Lanka. Also interesting is that his highest FIDE ranking appears to have only been 2,144 (which doesn't appear to qualify for an IM title). In the 2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games his record was 2 wins, one draw and four losses. Based on the above I do not feel that he satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: I'm not sure what his peak rating was - the article says 2204, but Elo ratings are not the only way to earn the IM title - he was awarded it after his performance in the 2013 Asian Zonal, as his FIDE card indicates. He was the first Sri Lankan IM [88]; indeed he is still the only one.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: I'm not necessarily across all things chess, so I stand corrected regarding your interpretation about how you earn a IM title. I do note that Weerawardane however is not the only Sri Lankan IM as according to your sources S. D. Ranasinghe is also an IM. BTW the source you provided stating he was the first Sri Lankan IM is from a blog site and is not considered WP:RS. What I was trying to state is that given the large numbers of GMs in the world (over 1,500) I can't see the case to justify an IM (where there are over 5,500) should be automatically notable. Dan arndt (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ranasinghe appears to be a Women’s International Master, which is not the same thing - it’s a lower standard. I take your point that there are thousands of IMs but that still represents only 0.25% of all tournament chess players.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delay decision - It so happens that a proposal for Notability of chess players is currently under discussion at WikiProject Chess. This subject would have made notability based on the first iteration of the proposal, but not according to the most recent iteration. I suggest holding on a decision in this case until we can apply the consensus guidelines that are reached there. Greenman (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If a person would pass those criteria but not actually be notable (i.e. not have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject), that is a reason not to support those criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with postponing the debate. It's kind of pointless if we delete this article and then the passed guidelines make him notable. EMachine03 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly, as he doesn’t appear to meet GNG. His achievement in becoming the first player from his country to become an IM is a significant one in my view, but it doesn’t seem to have resulted in coverage from reliable sources, unless there are non-English language ones out there. He is a strong player and I found a couple of tournament wins but in the absence of a chess notability guideline (although as noted above there may be one soon) he doesn’t meet our general standards.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That he is the first International Master from Sri Lanka can be easily sourced by his page at the Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games: [89]. He is still the only one. This is the highest title that has ever been reached by a chess player from Sri Lanka. Belittling this achievement here leaves me a little puzzled. --Gereon K. (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't about what we consider to be an achievement, impressive, important, etc. It's what other reliable publications have already considered to be noteworthy enough to write about in some in-depth fashion. The reason we might consider the "first X in country Y" to be notable is if we presume that that would mean it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject because of it, not simply because of the fact of being the first. It's not about belittling an achievement or even disagreeing that it's an impressive achievement -- it's that the only thing that matters is that there be some good sources about it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the first IM from Sri Lanka is probably a reasonable reason to keep the article. We have sources, if not great ones. Enough to have the basics. I strongly suspect there are quality non-English sources here. Hobit (talk) 03:58, 10 November 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. G11 entirely promotional. The arguments about notability are secondary, but the consensus of policy based arguments on that issue is also for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Hartson[edit]

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

Promotional article on a political candidate who has not yet served in office. I originally PROD'd the page but it was removed by the page's creator. Meatsgains (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Meatsgains instructed me to "# remove the text that looks like this: ((proposed deletion/dated...)) " so that was my intention in removing the PROD, my apologies if this broke protocol. It isn't supposed to be promotional, I literally wanted to know about this person, but was disappointed there wasn't an unbiased article about her with multiple perspectives represented. That is why I created the article, and invite everyone to contribute. If there is a "rule" that specifically prohibits creating wikipedia pages for political candidates who have not served in office, please cite it and I will happily concede this debate. --Mattomynameo (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly able remove the tag if you improve the article, which you did somewhat. However, at this point IMO, there still lacks references establishing notability. I suggest you continue to expand the page and provide additional reliable sources if you can find them and I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. I would still like feedback from others as well though. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hartson may become notable in the future, but at the moment it unfortunately seems WP:TOOSOON. No significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added content regarding her previous position as co-National Director of Wolf PAC, as well as significant coverage of her candidacy and statements since announcing. This includes Newsweek, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Daily Kos, The Hill, Bloomberg News, several written well before her announcement, to go along with the CNN coverage already in the article. There seems to be plenty more sources to add.Trackinfo (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any candidate in any election can always be sourced to some degree of candidacy coverage, so the fact that such coverage exists does not assist in making her more notable than all the other candidates who have similar coverage too. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is now notable in two instances (national co-director of Wolf PAC and major candidate in the California Senate race). Before the campaign announcement, I would have said differently, but now that she is notable in two things that already have Wiki pages, I think this article should be kept. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder and Meatsgains: Thanks for taking the time. I'm thinking about moving the content of this article into a subsection of United States Senate election in California, 2018. In reflecting, and particularly in reading the user page of AusLondonder, I believe you are correct that this could be considered "over-reporting" of United States and particularly California news... If this were my course of action, what clean-up should I do for deleting the new article? Thanks for your time & support. --User:Mattomynameo 17:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect per Mattomynameo. Candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, especially when they're still just candidates in primaries — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office to clear WP:NPOL, not just stand as a candidate. This is not, however, referenced to the depth of reliable source coverage needed to either deem her candidacy a special case or make Wolf PAC a valid claim of preexisting notability — of the fifteen footnotes here, nine are to primary sources or unreliable blogs that cannot assist notability at all, while a further four just glancingly namecheck her existence in articles that aren't about her. Which leaves just two sources that actually speak to potential notability by being reliable and independent and substantively about her — but two pieces of media coverage aren't enough to make a candidate in a primary encyclopedically notable by themselves, because any candidate in any primary could always show two pieces of media coverage. To make her candidacy "major" for the purposes of earning special treatment under NPOL, what we would require is evidence that the coverage is exploding wildly out of scale to what could normally be expected — the Christine O'Donnell scenario — and not just evidence that she's getting exactly the same run of the mill coverage as every other candidate in every primary. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft-ify it's too soon to say she's a "major candidate" in the 2018 California Senate race. The article is currently written in a promotional way, as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the duration of this election cycle... I don't know the rules of Wikipedia, but there is reason to believe political opponents would scour the web to erase mentions of their competition--meaning Wikipedia is particularly vulnerable of people with political motivations wanting to delete this page. Keeping it alive during the election is apparently a useful and effective information resource for individuals motivated to cultivate and develop this page. Versus the consideration of removal, which is a powerful political weapon that can be abused to cause harm to others. Clearly one of those two outcomes is more just, acceptable, and abiding to what I expect from Wikipedia as a lame consumer (and a donor to and advocate of Wikipedia fundraisers). I hope it is not acceptable practice that routinely people are bullied off of this platform with accusations that their subject is too obscure... there should be opportunity afforded to the public from this valuable information utility. If the subject of this article becomes obscure, then sure, archive or delete it... but at this time I think it's notewothy and valuable to have an article (I came here for more information, and found it), and the political context makes rejection unfavorable and risky. 75.84.148.0 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rules of Wikipedia are that unelected candidates who have no prior claim of notability for other reasons are not entitled to keep Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates, even just "for the duration of the election campaign" — because such articles routinely get whitewashed into non-neutral campaign brochures which violate our WP:NPOV rules, and are simultaneously vulnerable to biased editing by ideological opponents who violate NPOV the other way by dirtwashing it with similarly non-neutral attack edits. The article can and will be restored and expanded in 2018 if she wins the seat, but merely being a candidate is not a valid reason for an article on here in and of itself. And it's not political bias, either, because the same rule applies regardless of whether the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican or a Green or a Libertarian or whatever else. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The opening is a total violation of Neutral point of view rules. So bad infact that at a minimum we would need to put this article though TNT. However as an unelected candidate the subject is also not notable, so there is no reason to have the article at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, according to the edit history the biggest violation of NPOV rules in the article's opening, "a group seeking to destroy free speech gauranteed by the first admendment", was placed there by you. I'm not defending the introduction as it was previously (and is now again) written as being perfectly neutral ("corrupting" in particular being a word that definitely had to go), but it was certainly closer to neutrality than what you changed it to was. Care to clarify? (But thanks for illustrating exactly the point I just made in response to 75* directly above you, though.) Bearcat (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aghast. Inserting blatantly improper, inaccurate content like this, what we call vandalism, certainly should disqualify anything JPL has to say . . . in regards to this article and the numerous other comments this editor has made in efforts to delete other valid wikipedia content. JPL should make an effort to prove his account was hacked or something, which still would not explain his above apparent intent to use that malicious editing as a case to delete this article. We long term, named editors carry our credibility on every signature we leave behind on our work. You've just destroyed your credibility. It calls into question JPL's entire body of work, some 300,000 edits. Bearcat challenged JPL to explain himself. He didn't. @Bearcat:, shouldn't this go to WP:ANI, followed by a review of the numerous articles where JPL's strong opinion has led to the subsequent destruction of content?Trackinfo (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely problematic, but kindly don't overstate the ability of one editor to somehow singlehandedly control the existence or "destruction" of content — AFD discussions are a matter of consensus being established one way or the other by the participation of a number of editors, and even one editor's strong opinion can't kill an article by itself if other editors aren't swayed by it. JPL, further, actually quite rarely expresses much more than a short comment of support or opposition in most AFD discussions where I encounter him. So, yeah, what he did here was certainly problematic, but not to the point that we would have to retroactively review his entire AFD history. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not the best place to argue on past AfD discussions. The issue here is JPL's irresponsible editing and using that editing as support for his strong suggestion to delete this article. I will go to Bearcat's talk page to discuss the failures of the AfD process. Here, we should completely discount JPLs argument. Trackinfo (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Davey2116 (talk) 17:52, 14 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Quality Networks[edit]

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

No notability on its own depends on German Academic Exchange Service. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG because no third-party sources are cited. Merger to German Academic Exchange Service inappropriate for the same reason. Sandstein 09:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Sandstein. Sourced content about this can be added to German Academic Exchange Service. Galobtter (talk) 15:40, 13 November 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. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Adult Contemporary chart achievements by decade[edit]

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

The Billboard Adult Contemporary (chart) has a long history but it does not receive the coverage on trivial aspects of its history as does the Billboard Hot 100. So why it may make sense to have articles on List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones and List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade, it does not for these secondary pop charts. At best, repurpose to List of Billboard Adult Contemporary chart achievements with sourceable facts on the cumulative history of the chart. Without such sources, these types of list rely on an individual's own research going through Billboard back issues or (gasp!) Wikipedia and fingercounting each artist's number of number ones, etc., without further corroboration. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're talking about the list of billboard adult contemporary chart achievements. I'm not planning on making that page. I'm planning on making the list of billboard adult contemporary chart achievements by decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheetaWolf (talk • contribs) 12:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is fundamentally original research with no evidence of any notability for the topic. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for half of the list of billboard hot 100 chart achievements by decade. There are no reliable sources for half of the info on there, except for the top songs of the decade. If this page shouldn't exist, that page shouldn't either. CheetaWolf (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is always an option. Certainly not a justified reason for retention Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could at least try to finish the page first until it gets considered for deletion. CheetaWolf (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an unnecessary extension of the records and achievements section of the AC chart article and extraneous trivia. The sources either are about longest time spent at number one in the history of the chart (covered in the main article) or a book which is no more than a catalog of all songs which reached the chart. The R&A section in the main article is more than sufficient. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:41, 8 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan W. Clarke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. He is a professor at a regional college who has published 2 books and 35 articles in his career, none of which seem to have generated very much coverage. Article hasn't been substantially updated since 2007 when the last deletion discussion was closed with no consensus. Tobyc75 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR; written at least two books published by uni presses. Here are sample reviews:

RENDITION TO TORTURE. O'Berry, Anne. National Lawyers Guild Review, Dec 01, 2016; Vol. 69, No. 4, p. 252-256. The article reviews the book "Rendition to Torture," by Alan W. Clarke. more
Rendition to Torture. Jacob, Edwin Daniel. New Political Science, Jun 01, 2016; Vol. 38, No. 2, p. 285-287
Falling Out: The United States in the Global Community. Hook, Steven W. International Studies Review, Dec 01, 2008; Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 776-781. The article reviews several books including "A Faustian Foreign Policy from Woodrow Wi... more (Includes review of The Bitter Fruit of American Justice)

These reviews are from 2016, so they would not have been available for consideration in the first AfD. I can send reviews #1 and #3 to anyone interested. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is it another author whose BLP page should be kept against the policy - just because he published a couple of reviewed books? I do admit though that he seems more notable than Robert Bruce Ware, so my personal inclination would be to "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible book review the review of his book in the National Lawyers Guild Review cannot be used to support notability because he is a contributing editor, making it a non-independent source. Here {https://www.nlg.org/nlg-review/article/book-review-just-mercy-a-story-of-justice-and-redemption-by-bryan-stevenson/], scroll to author's bio at bottom of page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Political Sciende is, as [[agtx says, a decidedly second tier (I would have said third tire) journal. But the problem is tha tit is put out by the Caucus for a New Political Science, an academic group with which Clarke also appears to be affiliated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think those few reviews meet WP:AUTHOR, which notes that the relevant work is supposed to be a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work." A single book and an article in a second-tier law journal doesn't cut it. He clearly fails WP:PROF as well. agtx 02:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it this way. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Literature:

Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete argument for notability depends on 3 book reviews. that's not much for a book on a hot political topic, even form a univeristy preess. But at least one review is in a journal where he is contributing editor, and he appears to be part of the small academic caucus that publishes the second review as well. the third is a group review of several books. It just doesn't seem to add up to enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I cannot believe the amount of discussion here conducted without any facts. The references in the article need to be updated before any discussion of deletion. And where that is concerned, all I hear is wikilawyering: "As an WP:AUTHOR, he's an trivial scribbler." "As an WP:ACADEMIC, I reject his minor school." Guess what, the school changed since the article was written, that's why the links are dead. A small school it may be, but it is a center of death penalty study. Consider instead whether Clarke has made an impact on his field. When he dies, will he get a NYT obit for free? I am guessing he will. Whenever anyone else in his field writes a book about the death penalty, they come to Clarke for a review, It sounds to me like he's the elder statesman. Rhadow (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are there any sources for UVU being a center of death penalty studies? How about for getting an NYT obit? Or for him being an elder statesman? Are there any major awards for his books? Are they routinely cited as a major influence in the field? If not, then just being a published author may not be enough for notability. If 2 of the 3 reviews are not independent, then it doesn't sound like he is.Tobyc75 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tobyc75 makes an excellent point. A ten-year-old article on an active academic who publishes on a hot political topic without a single incoming link (except form his own university' s page) is an excellent (if unofficial) indication of lack of notability. I sometimes create articles on minor academics, and people inevitably and surprisingly quickly begin link to them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Thank you for the Gish Gallop.
  UVU probably follows Cornell, Cal, and Columbia in death penalty visibility. UVU for ten years has put on a symposium about the death penalty, sponsored by its UVU Peace & Justice Studies program. Google it and you'll find how many faculty members are qualified to present. Or if you don't want to I have provided samples of announcements from the Salt Lake Tribune [90] and Chillwall [91].
  Clarke is the go to guy for death penalty book reviews:[92] and [93]
  The criteria for a NYT obit is the topic of much speculation. Here is what Terry Gross discovered: [94]. It is, fundamentally, a secret, sorry.
  That Clarke writes reviews now and not books tell me he's an elder statesman. It's sky blue to me. If you need a journalist to synthesize that for you, then let's not put it in the article.
  I stand by my original observation of wikilawyering. Now you are looking at the control of the journals he publishes in? Other folks figure that being a journal editor or peer reviewer is something to be proud of, not an indication of crony collusion and second rate research. Rhadow (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nominator. This article fails both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Also, the article only cites three sources, two of them being from the website of Clarke's univeristy where he works, and the other one being of questionable reliability or, at least, appropriateness to cite. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clarke has been a death penalty activist since school days in the 1980s. One may argue that his contribution as a lawyer was insufficient to meet GNG. One may argue that his contribution as an academic since 2003 was insufficient to meet GNG. One may argue that his contribution as an author was insufficient to meet GNG. One may argue that his contribution as as a symposium organizer, journal editor, and reviewer was insufficient to meet GNG. Put them all together, and I suggest you have a notable person. Rhadow (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhadow. Just publishing a few reviewed books (the argument by K.e.coffman) would not be sufficient. However, considering all these factors together, he appears as a notable lawyer who passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that no one has been able to source the article. I did search. He hardly ever gets quoted in the media - let alone INDEPTH. His articles are rarely cited. His books - on a hot political topic - seem to have gotten 3 reviews, and 2 of the three in minor journals with which he is closely associated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. K.e.coffman is quite right that we almost always keep authors whose books have been reviewed multiple times, as stated in black and white at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common_outcomes#Literature. I'm also persuaded by Rhadow's reasoning that a weak keep under three separate notability guidelines adds up to a solid keep. – Joe (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you cite is not a guideline. For some reasons this was not included in guidelines. Perhaps it should be, but I guess there is a reason: such things have been discussed in the past, and there was no consensus to include. Maybe someone should post an RfC or something on the proper policy page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a guideline because it doesn't prescribe anything. It's just a factual list of the usual outcomes of certain types of AfDs. – Joe (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be clarified and asked the question [95]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 9 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMA Treatment Acceleration Act[edit]

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

One bill (draft act of law) that was proposed a decade ago in the United States but never voted into law, so fails WP:NLAW. It received some media coverage at the time, albeit limited and more of routine reporting type (WP:NOTNEWS). Most listed references are currently dead. I see no reason why anyone would ever search for this article. — kashmiri ^TALK 00:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never passed into law and has only received trivial coverage. Most of the available sources are primary. AusLondonder (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It never became a law, what can we possibly say about it other than that. It had no real interest or coverage then or since. Dysklyver 23:06, 6 November 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 that this is WP:SYNTH. Sandstein 09:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex guardianship[edit]

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

This term (this topic) is made up and synthesizes unreferenced original research - meshing together situations that are not related to each other or the topic. Fails WP:N, GNG, and Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. An orphanage run by Catholic nuns is not "same-sex guardianship". This topic pretty much has the value of a wp:neologism ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nom: This page was an apprpriate redirect back in 2008 to LGBT parenting ([96]) which is pretty much what this topic means in the modern sense of the word. Then one editor has been repeatedly changing the redirect to an article. In July 2017 that editor created this as an article [97]. In early November 2017 the redirect was restored [98]. Then it was changed back to an article [99].

It was restored to redirect by another editor [100], changed back to an article [101], moved to User space as a an article draft to be worked on [102], Moved back to the mainspace [103], tagged as Original research [104]. And now we are at AfD. It was the same editor who kept resisting efforts to appropriately redirect or dratify. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake: the term that it was originally placed under (which had been a redirect to LGBT parenting) was same-sex parenting; the "guardianship" terminology was suggested by another editor hen trying to get it out of the same-sex parenting space. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially an original research effort, this lumps together a disparate batch of child-rearing situations based on no source, so no sign that this form of grouping is significant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a source that actually combines these things together into one, and that is the only part of this that would be original. Psychological literature in published journals makes comparisons between gay or lesbian families and single parents to explore the issue of how a lack of a father or mother figure affects a child's development, and the two situations are in fact grouped together in order to explore that particular developmental issue. Studies on orphans and their development also exists and covers similar issues involving lack of a father or mother figure, although I don't know if there exists any particular study that compares them together with gay couples in the same place as can be found with studies on single parents.

The facts and details are not original, but they are easily found in published sources. OR synthesis is when a conclusion is being made in the article by combining facts that is not present in the original source. I would argue that the article has no conclusions in it other than the fact that these were forms of same-sex environments that raised children, which is a conclusion supported by the sources. The only thing that is original is the article is just listing them together in one category for reference sake, which is not a conclusion in itself. I don't think wiki's OR policy was designed to negate something like this. Perhaps I am wrong. Reesorville (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know of a source that actually combines these things together into one, and that is the only part of this that would be original." Yet that is the core of the article. And even if you don't consider that OR, you've got the problem of lack of notability - the topic of these-things-lumped-together is something that you have no source for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed the redirect into a page in July 2017 without knowing that it was a problem for other links. The page existed for five months before someone deleted the content and changed it back without discussing on the talk page. I undid the reversion and asked that it be discussed on the talk page first. Then another user did the same thing without discussion, and I undid the reversion again and again asked for discussion on the talk page first. There was a tiny bit of discussion, before the page was deleted and put into some other category with a new name and then I republished it. Reesorville (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps, here is an abstract of an article that discusses the issue of children raised without a mother or father figure, that explicitly does compare same-sex couples with single parents: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121135904.htm Reesorville (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article being considered has nothing to do with single parents; they are not mentioned. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are psychological sources that directly talk about whether or not a male or female parenting role model is necessary for a child's development, doesn't fulfill notability? The fact that there is a political/social debate about the same question, doesn't fulfill notability? The topic is notable; I think the text of the article doesn't need anything added to prove its own notability. The debate itself is not referenced anywhere in this article, however, because the sources have no mention of that debate and that would be an example of OR synthesis, but as it stands, the only conclusion the article is making is just that those are in fact examples of children being raised in a same sex environment, which is a conclusion supported by sources. I don't think that listing them should qualify as a conclusion. Reesorville (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about whether or not a male or female parenting role model is necessary for a child's development, so no, the fact that there are articles on that does not fulfill notability for this article. We could also have an article about all the various people named Andy, but that doesn't make "fact that people are named Andy" notable even if we can find plenty of articles about individuals named Andy; nor would it make trying to analyze them together appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't need to be about that topic in order to be notable, but the existence of that topic is the reason why the subject of the article is notable, since that topic is directly related to the content of the article. Reesorville (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restore redirect. Blatant OR. Incidentally, do we have an article on the practice of one partner adopting another in order to create some kind of legal relationship in the absence of marriage? [105] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 10 November 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commander's call[edit]

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

Topic title is self explanatory. The three external links all link to the same page, which does not illustrate the use of this term, but the use of the term ‘all call’. No real substance to the article. Mccapra (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTDEF which is all the current entry is. If these is an appropriate redirect target - could be redirected there.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Icewhiz. Consider entering into Wiktionary.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 21:34, 10 November 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton, Colorado shooting[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a run-of-the-mill shooting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Random killing of multiple un-involved individuals at a Wallwart is not run of the mill. The event has received wide international coverage - meeting WP:SIGCOV. What isn't clear at this point, due to the event being recent (5 days old), is whether the coverage will be persistent and lasting. Per WP:RAPID, we should not delete the article at this time.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not run of the mill. Coverage has been persistent since. And lasting coverage are to soon to evaluate. Also are lasting effects.BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing ROUTINE about it. Meets WP:SIGCOV. Rushing this to AfD flies in the face of WP:PRESERVE and WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think there's nothing run of the mill with it, especially as there's been reports about it in international press (Spain, Argentina), so it doesn't have low notability either.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs some cleanup and expansion but as the other !votes above state the subject of the article has received enough indebt coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Probably is not notable and the article should not have been created at this time but the latter half of WP:RAPID trumps all when the AFD is created a few days after the incident. Persistence in coverage, indepth analysis, and a lasting impact cannot be evaluated; in other words, they do not exist. Sorry but it is best to come back when (only the latter half of) RAPID cannot be applied anymore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of ongoing coverage both national and international. Patapsco913 (talk) 20:55, 10 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaynen Rissling[edit]

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

Appears to fails WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources for games played and transactions. Drastically fails the current WP:NHOCKEY with no awards and playing in low coverage leagues. Not to be confused with the ECHL player of the same name born in 1993 (maybe of some relation?). Yosemiter (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN minor league hockey player, just a handful of games in the low minors, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Article created by editor under community ban for creating hundreds of NN stubs to bolster his new article count. Ravenswing 01:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Once upon a time the All-Academic team might have been arguably within the notability criteria of NHOCKEY but certainly not now. And I am not finding much coverage - the best I found was this and that is not enough. Rlendog (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rlendog: That source is for the current ECHL player of the same name (born 1993). Hence my note in the nomination. (And to be fair, when this article was created in 2012, I believe it passed the looser NHOCKEY guideline of "100 professional games" by playing the ECHL and WPHL in the 90s.) Yosemiter (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. So this subject has no coverage. Still non-notable. I think he may have passed in 2012 not on the basis of 100 games in the ECHL but on the basis of Hockey East All-Academic Team being deemed a significant enough award to confer notability at that time. Rlendog (talk) 17:35, 7 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uchechukwu Deborah Ukeh[edit]

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

Non-notable athletes. Fails WP:NSPORTS, no GNG sources presented and the only sources are results databases. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBADMINTON. Stvbastian (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because she didn't meet WP:NBADMINTON. And analysis below; WP:NBADMINTON has 5 points: point 1– Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships; No, the subject only participated in "Open events" not "World Championship"; for their differences see Badminton World Federation. Point number 2 is closely tied to number 1 and also not met: reason; same rationale as no 1. Points number, 5, 4 and 3 are all awards, this subject has none, as per as my several search shows. Any objection is welcome. Overall the article is stub, searches yielded poor result as their is no significant coverage of the subject, thus fails WP:GNG — Ammarpad (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article says subject was a medalist at All African Games. Darreg (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze medalist not, Silver, not Gold. In addition, the guideline says "Likely to be notable". Even wining Gold is not automatic notability. With failing of all other criterion, 1 time third level bronze can't establish all notability. — Ammarpad (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article meet #2 WP:NBADMINTON, she was the bronze medallist at the All African Games. All African Games is the continental championships. #3 WP:NBADMINTON, medalist at the Nigeria, Ivory Coast, and Benin International tournament. Nigeria, Ivory Coast, and Benin International same level with Slovak International which mentioned at the #3.Stvbastian (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean that the athlete is 100% notable automatically. They maybe, and in this case with the lack of GNG they are not. So my decision to Delete stands. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable player and meet GNG. [106], [107], [108]. Stvbastian (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All three articles mention the athlete in passing, ie the article is not about them. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Stvbastian: First meeting GNG is not guarantee for Wikipedia article; because GNG only "presume" not automate;
From GNG: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article
. Now let's see whether the sources you provided have the significant coverage to create an "assumption" of GNG first.
Analysis of @Stvbastian:'s WP:GNG sources: First ref headline: "TEAM Nigeria bags 12 Gold" [109]. First this report focused about GOLD medalists, (the real winners) specifically, not Silver not Bronze. This reference is what is called "mere mention" in every sense. The title alone tells what the story is all about. You can also reread it, perhaps you read it in hurry.

Second ref headline: "Nigeria's Badminton TEAM wins Benin Republic International." [110] This is similar report as above talking about Nigerian Badminton TEAM not one bronze medalist, not even those who won Silver and Gold. Reading the actual story will explain I only understate here.

Third ref headline: "National Badminton Champions Get One Year Sponsorship from Chinese Company" [111]. Story about sponsorship granted to the national champions collectively also. All these news reports there is none that dedicate full paragraph to tell us who is Uchechukwu Deborah Ukeh and what she is up to. This subject fails WP:GNG entirely, fails WP:NBADMINTON 80– 90% therefore didn't meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, perhaps later in future but now she doesn't — Ammarpad (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBADMINTON #3, as she has won a medal at several international tournaments which are the highest one in their country. If you don't like the criteria, this isn't the place to discuss it. She passes them. Smartyllama (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First let me remind you of something. She won 1 bronze (3rd medal) once in 2015. Your claim of several medals is unsourced. Second. Quoting WP:NBADMINTON:
Athletes in Badminton are likely to be notable if they meet any of the criteria below
. This means even those who participate in the grand BWF World Championships and won gold and silver are not given automatic notability because of this talkless of one time 3rd level bronze winner. WP:GNG is the basic and general inclusion criterion. It states
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
It further explains what is significant coverage; Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content. This subject fails this WP:GNG entirely, no significant coverage only mention of winning among hundreds of winners and it is only this GNG that can complement the likely notability of WP:NBADMINTON #3. — Ammarpad (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smartyllama.She passes WP:NBADMINTON #3.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GNG has higher precedence than WP:NBadminton, and in this case the article fails GNG and therefore should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You created this AfD. You don't get a second vote. Smartyllama (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't a second vote though. I put comment at the very beginning, something you conveniently glossed over in writing that comment. Please use your time constructively to build the encyclopedia instead of falsely throwing out accusations and editing disruptively. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, RfCs have consistently affirmed that GNG takes precedence over SNGs. Even disregarding that, her claim to notability via NBADMINTON is dubious at best given that she has only won a single bronze medal in a notable competition. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:37, 13 November 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.