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. A Train^talk 07:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Khayms[edit]

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

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

Non-notable academic, fails WP:PROF. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet any of the notability guidelines for professors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and User:CapitalSasha; article does not claim notability. Ifnord (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Worked at Lockheed but article doesn't even mention that. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:44, 4 October 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. There is clearly no consensus here in either direction after a substantial discussion. A Train^talk 06:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack[edit]

2011 Tel Aviv nightclub attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The original AfD was initiated soon after the article was created and resulted in "no consensus" (deletion would have been entirely appropriate however). Six years removed from the incident, we now can confirm the total lack of historical significance. The media repeated the same story for a few days in late August and early September but Wikipedia is not a news paper and it does not demonstrate diversity in sources; please do not bombard us with sources saying the same thing to make a failed case for GNG or diversity. The incident did not have a long-term impact on a regional, let alone national, scale and lacks "further analysis or discussion". A routine report of the perp's indictment does not satisfy this point since it is merely a one-day briefing in the news.

• Note: In closing, unfortunately I must stress this because of past personal attacks: I do not have a bias or prejudice against Israeli victims, and I will not tolerate any editor who accuses me of this fallacy again in an attempt to derail another discussion. If you cannot enter this discussion civilly and objectively, do not participate. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: TheGracefulSlick I do understand your point of view, but since this article is about an incident that occured six years ago and since there are other articles about these 'aged' incidents as well (like the 2008 Jerusalem vehicular attack and the 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing, similar attacks in scale and noteworthiness), the criteria of what fits and what not becomes rather difficult to establish. Should all these articles about the more 'amaturistic low-casualty attacks' be removed? Despite the fact that these incidents didn't have a long-term impact they're still relatively rare in Israel. Attacks like the 2011 nightclub attack didn't occur very often in Tel Aviv. I occasionally check the article when I observe the 'more significant' attacks on the list of terrorist incidents in Israel in 2011. In my opinion, the 2011 night club attack is distinguishable from other attacks in Israel and despite the shortlived media attention, fits the other criteria for a Wikipedia article.JBergsma1 (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• JBergsma1 you have a right to your opinion but I demonstrated why it fails every aspect of WP:EVENTCRIT and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Right now, I am focused on this specific incident, not other stuff. Remember, rarity or "perceived importance" are arguments we try to avoid. Attacks in Israel are, unfortunately, common on both sides. Can you demonstrate why we should ignore EVENTCRIT; what "other criteria are you describing?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick I'm not saying that we should ignore EVENTCRIT. The problem with EVENTCRIT is that it is based around interpretation. What are the boundaries between an article that is 'notable' and therefore suitable for Wikipedia and an article that doesn't fit per WP:NOTNEWS? How notable must an attack be to make it suitable for Wikipedia? The guidelines indicate this to some extent but for the rest it takes interpretation. In my own interpretation this incident does fit WP:V and WP:RS, since the sources seem to be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Next to that, the 'WP:OSE' and 'WP:Subjective importance are essay's and not the guidelines of Wikipedia's. Therefore I think it is suitable here to make the comparisson with 'similar attacks' for the long term about why these should exist and this one not. I haven't decided yet whether the article should be kept or deleted. I do agree for the most part on what you just mentioned, but considering this article not 'noteworthy' on only the fact of shortlived media coverage seems to me quite bluntly.JBergsma1 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JBergsma1 short-lived media coverage is a big part of WP:NOTNEWS but that is not the sole purpose for my nomination; I mostly applied EVENTCRIT. The sources came in brief spurts, mirrored each other, and any impacts were immediate and local. If this were truly notable, other outlets would analyze it, not just repeat the same story. Also, I mentioned those essays because they help us determine arguments we should avoid at an AfD -- if we are following policy that is (more at WP:ATA). Verifiability, for instance, is not a gauge of notability. In addition, when a source follows a common narrative, it is sometimes considered a WP:PRIMARY source. I can gladly discuss the other incidents at another time but I hope you will support my rationale here and enforce the policies I noted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I took another look and it seems that this incident was indeed not very notable considering WP:NOTNEWS.JBergsma1 (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a classic example of why terror attack articles most definitely need a revisit after the proverbial smoke has cleared. There are notable terror attacks even on a small scale like this one, but this isn't one of them. The lack of historical significance is precisely as nom has stated. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigHaz I don't disagree with you, but can you tell me what would've made this article more significant? Would it have been a higher death toll or more sophistication? I'm also kind of curious to the small scale attacks you're refering to that are considered notable. What makes an incident historically significantJBergsma1 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

Good questions all (and if you want to respond to what I'm saying here, no need for the ping, as I've got this one watchlisted). In addition to the points Slick has raised in your discussion above, I would say that - bloodthirsty as it may sound - an attack with a higher death toll is more likely to be significant. Sophistication doesn't really enter into it for me, to be frank. The more recent vehicle attacks in Europe weren't desperately sophisticated, but I'd be surprised if they would fail notability in six years' time, for example. For mine, it's the lasting-significance piece that comes into play the most. While there's an argument in this article that says this was a forerunner of your Nices and Berlins, that doesn't seem to be a widely-held view. The NOTNEWS aspect also comes into play, but that's been discussed above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And since I've just realised I didn't address it, I can't specifically think of any small-scale attacks like this which are notable right off the top of my head, so perhaps I should have said "I'm sure there are..." there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well-sourced and notable insofar as this incident is part of an ongoing wave of terrorism that has spread all over the world. Deletion of this article will require deletion of thousands of similar articles about terrorist attacks worldwide.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is certainly part of ongoing Isr-Pal conflict, but nothing in the article suggests that the event is in any way part of any "wave of terrorism that has spread all over the world".Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources in the article and the literature on terrorism in general support the idea that anti-Israel terrorism from the early airplane hijackings to the recent stabbing attacks have been role models for terrorists and jihadis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Added sentencing for perp, and coverage of the rehabilitation and return to service of one of the victims - years after the attack. Meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I demonstrated how it doesn't pass either of those policies but sure. How does the recovery of two victims meet any requirement for notability? Are victims supposed to stay injured? It is just a "feel good" story after the fact with no major importance. Surely you know this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is in depth coverage of an aspect of the attack. Editor opinion regarding historical importance is not a valid deletion rationale. Coverage (LASTING, DIVERSE, etc etc) is key to determining GNG as long as it is not a WP:NOT fail. In this case we have lasting coverage in RS.Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, my bad, you actually did not know. My apologies. "In-depth", more like WP:ROUTINE. Those people did not just fall off the face of the earth after the attack; journalists will briefly revisit them because it is a good story. Historical importance is not an opinion but a necessity covered by WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:LASTING. Unless that injured individual was notable himself, where is the importance? All you did was further demonstrate why Wikipedia is not a newspapers (hey look a WP:NOT).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact checking GracefulSlick. It is nowhere written that all of the indici listed under "inclusion criteria" in WP:NCRIME need to be met, let alone that such criteria as GEOSCOPE need to be met according to the opinion of any individual editor. These are indici, not requirements. There will necessarily be articles that meet only some of them, just as there will be differences of opinion on how to interpret these indici of notability which, in the final analysis, are a matter of editor judgment reached by consensus. Not of any single editor's opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Incident received shortlived media coverage and fails WP:NOTABILITY. JBergsma1 (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after ensuring content is covered in any apprpriate list articles. Incident received shortlived media coverage and fails WP:NOTABILITY, sadly an event which impacted on the individuals, but which had no long-term consequence nor in-depth analysis to justify a seperate article. Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments by JBergman and Pincrete were made before article was expanded with ongoing coverage negating their "shortlived coverage" rationale.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NCRIME also reported by WP:DIVERSE sources make it notable.WP:NEWS doesn't apply in this case as it not routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities"--Shrike (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually Shrike, that's exactly what this is -- routine news reporting. And you misused WP:DIVERSE: when sources mirror each other or share a common story, it is called narrative reporting and it is often considered a WP:PRIMARY source, sorry to say.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No there is nothing routine per our policy.The Source report same incidents that doesn't mean the mirror each other do you claim that NY post mirror Ynet?--Shrike (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Before it is falsely used as proof of analysis, this book source Gregory used passively mentions the attack in one sentence. As we all know, passing mentions are not the in-depth analysis we seek or an example of continued coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deleting this article would result in a loss of function for Wikipedia because it is linked form other articles including Stabbing as a terrorist tactic, Vehicle-ramming attack and Haoman 17, although merging this to the nightclub's article would have an WP:UNDUE impact on that article. I also note that there is a steady drumbeat of hits on this article, ~10 a day, with occassional spikes to 200-300 hundred hits a day, which confirms that this article serves our users. My primary argument, however, is that just as edifices are made of individual bricks, Wikipedia is built of individual articles that can be linked, as this article is, from articles like Vehicle-ramming attack, enabling readers to delve into important topics like terrorism. Moreover, article is strongly sourced to WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS the year it happened and some ongoing coverage the years since, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Plus, WP:HEY editors responded to this AfD by adding coverage of this attack years after it took place, including a book I just added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You really need to read WP:ATA. Linked to other articles? Web search hits? What terribly weak arguments. WP:SIGCOV; no, those are news reports. For once, I would love to see a response from you that actually follows our policies. But yes, I'll WP:AGF and stop WP:BLUDGEONing, as you'll inevitably respond to me with.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe casualties should be the "litmus test" to determine if an attack is notable or not. And if no one was killed, then I don't think the attack meets the notability test. ImTheIP (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Body counts are not a valid deletion rationale grounded in policy (for inclusion or deletion).Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Casualty counts are not a policy-based criterion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEY, 2012 BBC article says perp was living in Tel Aviv as an illegal migrant. Note that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is part of the WP:NCRIME guideline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is what we call a common circumstance. Of course, the media gives a brief background of the perp but "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage". More importantly, for you to know: "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Called it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEY The point of citing ongoing coverage such as Joshua Keating's Why Terrorists Use Vehicles as Weapons Slate [1], Slate (magazine), 5 November 2014; and Truck Attacks: Low-Tech, Soft Target Terrorism Is Growing Threat, [2], NBC News, 20 December 2016, is that interest in this attack IS ongoing, which may explain the periodic spikes when this article gets clusters of hundreds of page views. When journalists are citing an incident that happened years ago, our users do expect there to be an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The actual point is to find any source that passively mentions the incident to fabricate "ongoing coverage". One sentence is a passing mention, and the writer goes on to describe a seperate point or incident that was, in actuality, the subject of interest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even with some media mention about the ramming, this isn't of proven lasting importance. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• While that is one perspective. I would say that the articles that use this attack as an example of an early instance of the Vehicle ramming attacks that would soon become an all-too-familiar terrorist tactic refute Nom's claim that article should be deleted because "The media repeated the same story for a few days]] in late August and early September (2011) but... lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the article reads like a news report: who; what; when; where. The sources presented as an argument for sustained coverage are passing mentions. There's no lasting significance or societal impact and no depth of coverage; fails WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am trying to judge this by the same standards applied to other vehicle-ramming attacks in which there were no casualties, including the June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack (kept twice at AfD,) 2017 Westminster attack, Levallois-Perret attack (no consensus at AfD,) 2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack (Canada,) 2007 Glasgow Airport attack and the very similar 2016 Ohio State University attack. I flag Ohio state, because there also perp jumped from car and started stabbing people. And I note that we need to use the same standards we use to consider the notability of attacks involving stabbing as a terrorist tactic in which no one except perp dies, these include the 2013 La Défense attack, 2014 Queens hatchet attack (New York,) 2014 Tours police station stabbing, 2015 University of California, Merced stabbing attack. All of these are similar to the article under discussion here in that all are reliably sourced, all get significant numbers of page views, and all are linked from other articles in the efficient system that separated Wikipedia form the paper Brittanicas our older readers grew up with. We are not running out of space, I am just utterly puzzled to understand the rationale for deleting reliably sourced, user-friendly information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have trouble following along, read the rationales provided. Other stuff is not being discussed here and, as I said in the past, I'll get around to those incidents eventually and access them objectively. Page views, server space, links, and being "user-friendly" (first time I heard that one!) are just more arguments to avoid from any competent editor. I am actually heartened by the fact more editors are understanding our notability guidelines.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:POINTy comment, and, now that I mention it, WP:POINTy AfD, on in a series of WP:POINTy AfDs by TheGracefulSlick arguing for deletion of well-sourced terrorist attack articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for now - This is a difficult one to say the least. I'll dispense with the weak arguments presented first. As of this moment, this article actually has a better argument for WP:PERSISTENCE/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE than the 2016 Nice attack. I say this because the Nice attack, though notable, is almost exclusively discussed in sources from 2016 with only two citations from 2017. By contrast, this 2011 attack has been discussed by sources, however limitedly, in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, and even in 2017. The first real question with regards to this is, whether or not this can be considered routine coverage, even if persistent. I'm a firm no on this, specifically because a terror attack isn't simply routine coverage and because coming up multiple times in six years negates any routineness about it. I'm also not entirely sure why the OP has linked to Wikiproject:Diversity in their nomination, I assume this was a mislink meant to be for WP:DIVERSE. Eh, again, the sources aren't mirror images of each other and they aren't just local. So this argument doesn't hold much water. Same with WP:GEOSCOPE, national and international coverage does negate this argument. The OP isn't particularly interested in a GNG argument, since it's obvious that this article will meet it; it received some significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources independent of the subject and is thus presumed notable. You could make that argument and just walk away, to be fair. There's also somebody's "litmus test" for this article about there being casualties, this event has 8/9 (IB/Lede) casualties. As I've explained before, a casualty and a fatality are not the same thing. Casualties include injuries, fatalities, for obvious reasons, do not. That dispensed with, the nom does bring up something of particular value to this kind of discussion. That is, WP:LASTING. The big keep or delete split really should come down to that question. The closest this article comes to meeting lasting, afaict, is the branding of this attack as being an early example of the the terrorist vehicle-ramming attacks phenomenon within the article itself. A check of the sources supporting this claim ... do not support it. From one specific source; In 2011, when a stolen taxi rammed into a police roadblock outside a club in Tel Aviv, injuring seven, the Jerusalem Post reported that it was the fifth attack of its kind in the past three years. Beyond that, while its part of the I/P conflict, nothing seems to have precipitated out of it. No retaliation, no policy, no nothing except the cited claim that other vehicle-ramming attacks drew inspiration for this one. Right now, I'm leaning towards a weak delete. I'll have to revisit this, and find the previous AfD, before making a final statement on it. This is just what I have for now. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I cleaned up, made more accurate, and expanded the subhead "Vehicle ramming as a trend" in response ot Mr rnddude's thoughtful comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:GEOSCOPE is met by seeing this article as an integral part of the articles from which it is linked, these include List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011, vehicle-ramming attack, and Stabbing as a terrorist tactic. This perspective is supported not only by the articles linked in subhead "Vehicle ramming as a trend", but by the fact that because it is part of a series of incidents that constitute a wave of terrorism that have caused the once peaceful streets streets of Tel Aviv, Paris and other cites to be under so constant patrol by armed guards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 1.) this article is valuable as a detailed account linked from other article; 2.) there is a sort of people's vote by our users, shown in this pageview chart [3]; and 3.) WP:GNG. Coverage meets the standards laid out under WP:GNG and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the note, I'll take a second look through the article in the morning. I'm loathe to delete articles that are well written and well cited when I think of the micro-stub, no future, articles we keep around to gather dust and that get looked at once a week when compared to articles that have regular daily viewership. You know, I visited Strasbourg a few months ago. On my way to eat at a restaurant on my second day there, while in a small corridor alley of a street, I walked straight past four heavily armed (assault rifle carrying) soldiers that were just out there patrolling the streets. You could tell by the non-reaction of anybody else that this was just another part of daily life, for me, living in Australia, it felt like a modern Napoleonic era. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do WP:LASTING is necessary to keep the article?For example if WP:DIVERSE are met this is not enough?--Shrike (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Your rationale will depend on what guideline you're demonstrating the article meets or fails to meet. If you're going after events then what you'll aim to demonstrate is that Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect and Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). So you'll want a combination of GNG, LASTING (if applicable - not always on recent events) and DIVERSE backed by DEPTH and PERSISTENT. The latter part is easy to demonstrate. The problem lies in the "enduring historical significance" and "LASTING" portion which are difficult to demonstrate at all and are entirely subjective. Perosnally, I tend to drift towards considering multiple relevant guidelines, the arguments already presented, the article itself and then forming my position based on that. Sometimes I know based on the article what my position is, but, that's a rarity. In this instance, I failed to find any immediate lasting effect, but, like I said, I'll revisit it in the morning. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr rnddude don't be fooled by Gregory's "expansion". The sources, as you noted, do not say what he is claiming. In the book source as well, the attack is briefly mentioned but there is no connection to "making holy war". It goes without saying since you have thoughtfully analyzed the article but page views and wikilinks are not indications of notability, as Gregory has asserted too many times. His, umm, "interpretation" of GEOSCOPE is quite mistaken as well to put it nicely.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• With regards to making holy war; All of these perpetrators made obvious their desire to make "holy war". Last sentence of Note 15 pg 12. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tel Aviv Nightclub attack is the 2011 AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because of the continuing coverage spanning 2011, 2012 and 2013; the 2014 and 2016 explainers of vehicular terrorism in Slate^[1], in NBC News,^[2] and in Australia's The New Daily^[3] that specifically cite the 2011 Tel Aviv attack; and the 2017 white paper on "Vehicles as a Weapon of Terror"^[4] by the Counter Extremism Project that also references Tel Aviv.
  In addition, the Tel Aviv attack is included in the 2013 book A Citizen’s Guide to Terrorism and Counterterrorism.^[5]
  Now, the first claim for deletion is WP:LASTING, but LASTING says that an event with "lasting significance is likely to be notable;" i.e., not having LASTING by itself is no grounds for deletion. The second claim is that «The media repeated the same story for a few days». But the criteria for WP:109PAPERS is "stories are reported in the news just once on a single day, or over a period of a few days, and then are forgotten." Well, this story certainly was not forgotten in 2012-2017. The third claim is WP:NOTNEWS, but the relevant fail criteria are "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" and "breaking news". Again, reporting from 2012 and 2013 and books and explainers from years later do not meet either. The fourth claim for deletion is that the article fails diversity in sources. I don't know what that means; certainly the sources are from Australia, Israel, the United States, the UK and others. Does that fail WP:DIVERSITY?. The next claim is quite curious: WP:BOMBARD "sources saying the same thing". Not applicable, as the sources span time and place. Following is the claim that WP:GEOSCOPE is not met. But WP:GEOSCOPE says "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."; i.e., it is a good to have, but not a must have. Next the claim is made that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is not met, but again, see coverage 2011-2013. Plus, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE actually says: "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance" ---please see the 2014-2017 explainers and white paper. Finally, claims are made that reportages on the trials and convictions of the terrorists (i.e. criminals) are WP:ROUTINE. But back when the terrorist was a mere suspect, liable to be let go after 72 hrs, did we know what the outcome of the investigations and trials were going to be? WP:ROUTINE is clearly aimed at weddings, game scores, the police blotter and "often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers". Such a serious misreading of policy should be tempered by reading WP:NOTROUTINE, which explains: "Be careful not to make WP:ROUTINE mean something that it does not. Just because a news article is written about a pre-planned event does not make it "routine" coverage." XavierItzm (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per sources. Per coverall overall of this event. Per WP:NCRIME.BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG and per XavierItzm the coverage is continuing over the years and passes WP:LASTING.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a routine event and the article attempts to pump up its significance in the greater context of the ongoing Israeli Palestinian conflict. There is no evidence that this event was tied to any terror group - it was by all appearances a disgruntled 21 year old. Nobody was killed, thankfully. The background section doesn't fit - efforts to secure the border have nothing to do with this attack, yet the article tries to conflate the two. The radicalization section is likewise out of place. The suspect practiced with a knife and stick in his apartment? He made and deleted a video? He tried to take a tractor but it was gone? It's four paragraphs of routine info that tricks readers into thinking there's more here than there is. The vehicle ramming as a trend section is also a weak attempt to beef this up through association with more notable vehicle ramming events. Each source listed only mentions the event in one sentence, with no context or indication of significance. Finally, per WP:NOTNEWS, there's no indication that there's any enduring legacy from this event, or that it's become part of the cultural zeitgeist in any way. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No deaths, no lasting importance. WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 4 October 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) 19:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raina Seitel[edit]

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

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

I'm not convinced that a video that merely demonstrates that the subject is employed by ABC and a reference for her dog's name suffice to establish notability of this journalist. Per WP:BEFORE, a search for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources using different variant of her name, like Raina Seitel-Gittlin, yielded no results. Mduvekot (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of multiple sources about the subject of this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition, seems to be just a fanpage...written by SPA whose only existing edit was to create this article. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Agricola44. Montanabw^(talk) 07:35, 1 October 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. Alex Shih^Talk 05:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Kuník[edit]

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

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG as far as I can find. He also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7: Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. This article about a person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. AaronWikia (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: I'm with AaronWikia; unlike some of the deprodders out there, I see no reason how having (purportedly) received money to play hockey is a prima facie claim of importance. Obviously there's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY under which the subject would be notable, nor does he meet the GNG. Article's been on Wikipedia for ten years too long already. Ravenswing 03:56, 27 September 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.An easily locatable abundance of source nullifies the argument advanced by the nom. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harp and bowl[edit]

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

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

Non notable style of worship, a Google search shows only this article or primary source websites. No in-depth coverage in independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'd never heard of this before, but GBooks shows significant coverage in numerous independent sources (e.g. [4]). Not sure how the nominator missed this. StAnselm (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are numerous books written on the topic and a lot more reliable content on the internet than @Theroadislong: may have initially found. It certainly needs to be better sourced, but it is notable and is a common form of worship in the International House of Prayer as well as the many other Houses of Prayer around the United States. Books by Dick Eastman and Mike Bickle cover the topic extensively. Someone just needs to do some work on the article. Doctor^G  (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as editors above say, sources are plentiful, it just needs a better article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per StAnselm. Plenty of coverage in Google books. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 28 September 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 BTS (band).The arguments of independent-notability have been well-rebuttled. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suga (entertainer)[edit]

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

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

See WP:NBAND. Not independently notable; I think we've been down this road before. The guy's got a mixtape, that's basically it. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This BTS member has been subject to significant coverage independent from his group to establish notability. There are extensive interviews which discuss his stage name for his mixtape, its lyrical content, why he chose to release it for free over a commercial album, etc, including Grazia Korea [5], Marie Claire Korea [6], Naver Starcast [7]. He has received more coverage beyond that in the Busan Ilbo [8], Newsen [9], and various other outlets. He has received coverage from reliable English-language sources like Billboard [10] (about him) [11] (about his mixtape) and Fuse [12] (which ranked his mixtape as one of the best in 2016 at #16). In this case, a stand-alone article is merited here. ℯxplicit 07:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: this article has been created/recreated and then deleted/redirected multiple times (most recently at Suga (musician), the individual has not released any singles (his one charted song "First Love" is from an album in which all group members had a solo track). I added input on Talk:Suga (musician) not so long ago, but even then I was not entirely sure of how international sources made all the difference. Abdotorg (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If the result is keep I very much think that the Suga (musician) article should be restored in place of the current Suga (entertainer). Abdotorg (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep User explicit has more than demonstrated the notability here aboveEgaoblai (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to BTS (band). BTS is very popular and is definitely notable. Suga is also quite popular, but it is true that he is popular for being part of BTS. He has recently released a mixtape and in the future he may garner enough attention that he will be known solely for his own acts. Currently, I think it is fair to redirect so that the content can be saved and later restored when he gains solo popularity.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I don't see how he is independently notable just because he has released a mixtape. I barely acknowledge V as notable enough but at least he was part of a popular drama however if we follow the citeria for WP:NBAND then he is notable enough because the first part says "Musicians [...] may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" and Explicit proved that Suga "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Although I wonder if a free mixtape released via SoundCloud is really enough to justify an own article.--Thebestwinter (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As mentioned above he has his solo mixtape and is from a very popular band. Starting this year he has stepped out of BTS and began to produce songs for others. Ukiss2ne14lyfe (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to band article. Clearly not enough independent coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Interviews are primary, and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to band article. Does not have significant, in-depth coverage separately from band. Neutrality^talk 04:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Abdotorg, DreamLinker, Thebestwinter, Onel5969, and Neutrality: Can you please expand on how you searched for, read through, and assessed Korean-language sources and came to the conclusion that the subject is not independently notable from his group? Especially considering, in addition to the examples provided above, this article discussing the symbolism and themes of the "Agust D" music video, this article detailing the mixtape tracks, this article about his background and the history of the mixtape, and this extensive review from a magazine. ℯxplicit 07:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not know Korean, though I have been listening to KPop for years now. Part of my decision comes from my personal knowledge. Part of it is also due to the quality of sources. This magazine review for example, seems to be a site like medium where people can sign up and post articles. The #16 at Fuse is not an official chart but simply an editorial opinion. (There are many such sites which provide that). The billboard article essentially talks about Suga as a member of BTS, not as a solo artist. The Busan Ilbo, Newsen and other sources are the same news that he has released a mixtape (this kind of reporting is pretty common when a member of a famous band releases a solo album/mixtape, due to the press release being sent). I don't give a lot of weightage to short album reviews (they are fairly common). Essentially, what has happened is "a member of BTS has released a solo mixtape". But there is not enough coverage which distinguishes Suga's own unique role from that of BTS. (Sometime in the future, he may become independently notable). But I think right now is too soon. (Which is why I prefer a redirect, instead of deleting the content).--DreamLinker (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: BTS as a whole is immensely popular, not to mention, the individual members have actually done a fair amount of things that just haven't been added yet (magazine spreads, for example). Seeing as that even less popular groups end up with individual wiki pages, I feel that a separate page is logical. The guy has contributed to a lot of songwriting, and seeing as he'll likely do even more in later years, for now, I believe that he needs a page. Even if it considers him an entertainer, I think the page should exist. — 76.121.238.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:38, September 24, 2017 (UTC).

• Redirect to band article for failing notability guidelines. This isn't about a band member being "good" or that people "like" them, it's about whether or not they deserve an encyclopedic article. Just because other articles about less popular bandmates exists does not logically imply this one should, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect - Keep the article, or redirect it with history, but do NOT delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to BTS (band); not independently notable. Having a mixtape does not meet WP:CREATIVE, and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 28 September 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) Booyahhayoob (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muriel McKay[edit]

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

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

Has coverage, but seems to be WP:1E. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The solution to any WP:1E concern is to simply rename the article to something like Kidnapping of Muriel McKay, not to delete it. The kidnapping is pretty obviously notable per the results of the Google Books search spoon-fed by the deletion nomination process. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I added some additional references, and material. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Kidnapping of Muriel McKay - seems somewhat notable, but an article of Muriel directly pretty clearly qualifies for WP:1E IMO. Booyahhayoob (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A notorious case, since the prosecution gained a murder conviction without a body, although we might move it to "Murder of Muriel McKay". PatGallacher (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per all above - thanks for your help. Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 27 September 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. A Train^talk 07:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Adler[edit]

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

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

Lawyer known mainly for his advertisements, but it seems that all the comment on them is local. Any most of it looks very much like advertorials or PR-based. Article written by declared paid editor. My own view is that anyone who proposes to edit for money should at the very least knowhow to write better articles than this, and we should be relative strict in applying the notability and promotionalism standards. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My affiliation to the article has been clearly stated. I would like to remind the editors that Jim Adler is a prominent lawyer since 1967 and has been mentioned at the The New York Times back in 1993 (that is 24 years ago). He is mentioned not only for his advertising, but also as one of the leading personal injury experts. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT is, as you say, a mention. It's in a 2 page article about a general matter , "Texas Lawyers to Vote on How Far Their Ads Can Go", which quotes one of his ads, among many other ads from other lawyers, and then says " Mr. Adler ... declined to speak with a reporter. " This is exactly the sort of mention that is not a substantial source for anything. (and the article in fact says that a different one of the lawyers, not he, is the one with the "inescapable advertisements). As for being a "prominent lawyer", that's much less than notability. What would be sufficient for notability is if he wins a major prize at a national level, or is elected head of the state bar. If he accomplishes these, he won't have to pay someone to write an article. The most inexcusable sort of paid article here is is about people asserted to be known mainly for advertising, because its so blatantly just another advertisement, DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So even being parodied in the animated TV series, Beavis and Butt-Head, which aired on MTV isn't worth mentioning? Search here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Beavis_and_Butt-Head_characters

mrbrianspencer ( talk ) 04:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, even that is not enough to make him notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject seems to be known only for his advertising campaign, of which this article is clearly part. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There just isn't sufficient coverage that discusses the subject directly. Apart from a few trivial mentions, we have some local coverage of the marketing activities. He falls short of our standards for biographical notability. Rentier (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable local ambulance chaser.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From your writing tone, it sounds like you have something against personal injury lawyers (by referencing the derogatory slang term, "ambulance chaser"). 12:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• *Keep 1) He is mentioned at the local press not only for his advertising but also as a leading personal injury expert: examples are 4 reports (first, second, third, fourth) at KPRC-TV (TV station) and “Texas Monthly” magazine. 2) He was included into the list “The 500 Most Famous Dallasites, Dead or Alive". 3) He has been parodied in several episodes of Beavis and Butt-Head and Extract” (2009) movie - both have national scale. 4) He serves as a lawyer since 1967 (that is 50 years). 5) There are 476 entries for Texas lawyers on Wikipedia, most of them far less notable than Jim Adler. Should we also delete 400 of them? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we should probably delete many of them, but this discussion is about Jim Adler, not the other 475. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• None of the sources that you claim to show that he is a leading personal injury expert actually say anything about him being "leading" or an "expert". They simply have a few words each saying that he is a personal injury lawyer followed by quotes from him. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. First link reads "Attorney Jim Adler has been specializing in automotive and trucking accident cases for 47 years and said Houston is a hotbed for red-light runners". By the way, do you mind to reveal you profile and not hide behind the IP address? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That quote follows my description above exactly, so how is it evidence that what I said is not true? Where does it say that he is a leading expert? It says nothing other than that he is an attorney specializing in a particular type of case, as nearly all attorneys do. And I only ever edit revealing my IP address rather than hiding behind a pseudonym. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV, COI, limited notabilty. What's not to like? Anmccaff (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From a sample of 20 of other 475 texas lawyers, 14 have held elected positions that give a presumption of notability, 2 have held other major political positions including judgeships, and 2 have become notable from other professions (1 businessman,1 professional athlete) That gives about 10% who were notable only as lawyers--some will have been presidents of the state bar, which has been considered to imply notability , so there are about 30 or so in the group who might merit consideration at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can only find one article focused on him specifically - the Dallas Business Journal article. It's not enough and so I agree that this fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:30, 3 October 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. While I appreciate the work done by Insertcleverphrasehere, it just doesn't seem to have convinced anyone else that the article is worth keeping. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Wojciechowski[edit]

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

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

Does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He does meet Criteria 2 of WP:NACADEMIC quite easily with the Silver Cross of Merit for his contributions to science. I just linked his articles over at the German and Polish wikis, which have additional references for GNG, as well as a list of publications and other info that can be used to expand this article. EDIT: Others brought up that the silver cross might not satisfy #2 of NACADEMIC, so I did an exhaustive search of sources (finding many). I have added them, and the article now clearly meets the WP:GNG, with multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject with significant detail (WP:HEY). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that the Silver Cross of Merit is a significant enough award to qualify. According to pl:Krzyż Zasługi there were 49,468 gold crosses and 84,642 silver awarded between 1992 and 2009. I make that nearly 8,000 per year at silver or higher. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

number of recipients shouldn't be an issue (so many articles, so little time:)), and this may be more appropriate at a different venue (Poland wikiproject talkpage?), but what civilian award do you deem significant enough to meet anybio? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Polish honours system, but I can see that this silver cross is awarded to more people than the British MBE, which is considerd to be two or three levels below that which is accepted as granting notability per WP:ANYBIO -- possibly a CBE and defininitely a DBE or KBE. For example my father was made an MBE in about 1974 or 1975 (I can't be bothered to look up the exact year at the moment) for "services to National Savings", which simply meant that he was an accountant who did a bit of voluntary work, but nothing approaching anything that would make him an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP 86.17.222.157, thanks for that, i knew a 1st year uni student who was a swimmer, attended the olympics and was knocked out in the 1st round but according to WP:NOLYMPICS is notable enough for an article, also there were over 10,000 competitors at 2012 london alone, all eligible for standalone articles so even a couple hundred thousand silver cross recipients shouldn't be a problem:)) , also also:)), an MBE is the fifth and lowest class at Order of the British Empire, the silver cross is the second level of the Cross of Merit so not the same, anyway probably veering offtopic so that will do. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO with him receiving the silver cross. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comment above about that award. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, While the subject is notable and we should have an article, there is an ongoing SPI which might lead to the article to qualify for deletion by G5. Agathoclea (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Agathoclea: This interpretation of G5 is a cancer on this project. Please explain how an ongoing SPI (link plz) is related to this, keeping in mind "To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. Pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already vouched for the article's content. Therefore it doesn't qualify for G5, regardless of interpretation.— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In view of a recent RfC it should at least be mentioned. My view at that RFC at the time was that if at the time of an AFD the fact was known and decidedly ignored G5 should not apply and I think that was echoed by a number of other editors. Agathoclea (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As a general observation I note that this is quite a common name in Poland, so anyone looking for sources needs to check that they've got the right Krzysztof Wojciechowski. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found at least a dart player that was linked to the target. Agathoclea (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the previous Keeps? It doesn't need GNG, it meets other subject specific notability guidelines. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also, please see the polish and German articles for additional sources for GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything needs to meet the General notability guidelines, that is why they are general. If there are additional sources, they should be put in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except WP:PROF. WP:PROF says: "if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." You might be interested in this discussion which aims to change the exemption of WP:PROF from WP:GNG, but the proposal seems to have attracted significant opposition. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that WP:PROF is a valid, and better for applicable subjects, alternative to the WP:GNG. The problem is that the subject of this article passes none of the points of WP:PROF. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply below. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for two reasons first overwhelming reason: this stub was started, probably as a provocation of some sort by a sock of anti-Polish-names editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby Martnen, for that reason alone this bio stub should be deleted, it's not something we want to encourage. Based on the sockmaster's previous avatars there's a likelihood that future sock accounts for disruptive editors, and IP edits for even more unpleasant material are likely to follow. Second reason, with all respect to the BLP, who is clearly notable for inclusion in Polish Wikipedia, the fact that there is a dab page of people at the same name and we didn't have an article for any of them shows that en.wp doesn't have to have articles for every BLP in other language wps (just as Polish, German etc wp don't have BLPs for every Australian/Irish/Indian/British/American who has a BLP here. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS - if anyone is torn on this point, note that the one-line trolling BLP which has been created has only 1 line of content created using Google translate. If the consensus here is really keep I would volunteer to replace the deleted stub, and give it more content. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already pointed out, deletion for G5 is invalid as soon as anyone !votes keep. In particular, I have already vouched for the content, and intend to recreate the article immediately in its current state if deleted for G5 reasons (yes I will be WP:POINTY on this issue). As far as I am aware, I am not a banned or blocked user, and having put my hand up, you may consider the current version as my own edit. Although I understand your reasoning (to punish socks by deleting their creations) using G5 as an argument for deletion of an article that multiple people have !voted keep on in a deletion discussion is asinine IMO. (Note that I would not recreate if it was deleted for some other reason than G5, just to clarify)— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere, I think the bigger picture here is that if the article comes or goes, either way, it shouldn't have the Academicoffee71 sock as the article creator, persistent socks are a major hassle for Wikipedia, we need to not reward them in any way. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is some disagreement about whether it is appropriate to disrupt wikipedia by deleting acceptable content just to 'punish' a sock. I personally don't see the point in deleting the article and immediately recreating it, just to remove a user's name from the editing history. I am also unclear how this is any different in terms of 'reward', the article would still exist, and I would think that would be the main 'reward' for the sock anyway, not their name down the bottom of a random history page. Can you point me to a discussion or policy page that shows support for your rationale of deleting and recreating to remove a sock from the edit history? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just exercising a bit of experience with this particular sockmaster. But it would be best to be deleted anyway. I think the comment about Silver Cross and the amount of recipients really means not WP:GNG, not sure what Silver Cross is equivalent to in UK or US, but would it be equivalent to a British MBE? That isn't notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver cross was in relation to WP:PROF, not GNG, and PROF isn't needed now that sourcing has been added to meet GNG. As for deleting via G5, I won't object to it so long as no prejudice is given towards another user recreating the article (which will be me almost immediately). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but not because of the identity of the person who created this, which is irrelevant because this should be deleted anyway, and certainly not because the subject is Polish as claimed as a reason for deletion by In ictu oculi. I don't know about other language Wikipedias but here at English Wikipedia there is nothing in policy or guidelines that discriminates between article subjects on the basis of nationality or the language of sources. The subject is simply not notable per the English Wikipedia guidelines. I have explained above how the Silver Cross of Merit falls below the expectations of WP:ACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO, and the claim made above that the Polish and German (both languages that I can read) articles show a pass of WP:GNG is simply incorrect. The only additional independent sources there are a local newspaper report of the award of the Silver Cross of Merit and the official announcement of the same. I can find no additional sources in Polish, German or English to add to these. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You argument regarding the Silver Cross is relatively compelling, though I would like to see a discussion regarding the MBE honor not being sufficient for WP:ANYBIO. Note that the Polish article also claims that he "is a laureate of the European Diploma awarded in 2005 by the Prime Minister of Brandenburg and the Golden Medal of Merit of the Viadrina University (2012)", but I agree with you that criteria #2 is marginal.

We don't have to rely on it though. His body of work[13] as an author might qualify him per PROF #9 (hard to verify as I don't speak polish to look up reviews of his work, but see: [14]). He also seems to qualify for #6 given his role as administrative director for Collegium Polonicum w Słubicach, as well as his role as chairman of the Fundacja_na_rzecz_Collegium_Polonicum.

As for searching for sources for GNG, you need to search "Dr. Krzysztof Wojciechowski", as there are others with the same name that make searching difficult otherwise. There is additional coverage of him regarding his proposal to create a monument to Wikipedia editors[15] [16] [17][18][19] [20] [21] [22](lol aren't we grateful?). He was interviewed here with Deutsche Welle, there was some coverage of an interview he had on German radio here, and another interview here. There are some other brief mentions as well [23] [24] [25]. These are in addition to the two sources about the silver cross [26] [27]. As a side note... how do you ping an IP? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ping - I'll try to follow this discussion daily until it is closed. Again I would point out that none of the sources that you provide are more than mentions of the subject, and also that the Collegium Polonicum is not a university or college in its own right but simply a name given to a joint project between two universities (one of which I happen to have studied at, so I can't be accused of bias against it), so being its administrative director is not a pass of WP:PROF criterion 6. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:Prof and WP:GNG. Award is not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Ok It is clear that nobody has read WP:NEXIST. I'm going to unwatchlist this discussion, and I will use my time more effectively by using the above sources to expand the article (at least 5 of those sources can be used for GNG, so your claim here is right out.) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland asking about the merits of the silver cross, "coola, thats enough!", okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :( in good faith but unfortunately that means the rest of this discussion is now WP:CANVASSED; you should really have asked the question about the Silver Cross, but unfortunately you've asked it about this article and linked this discussion. How many Silver Crosses are awarded each year? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i have clarified my statement at the project as to whether editors believe the silver cross meets notability requirements - i was not seeking their support on this article, anyway i'm not sure that it is canvassing, i did not ask editors to save this article, i am not aware that poland project participants will necessarily support the keeping of an article just because it comes under the purview of the project, indeed, there are a lot of editors who are a member of a project and regularly support the deletion of articles ie. sportspeople who don't meet the relevant sng that has been agreed upon by the project, anyway i apologise if that was the impression given. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that your edit was in complete good faith, but the problem here, which I'm also sure that you were not aware of and I didn't mention before because it was irrelevant, is that Krzysztof Wojciechowski is a regular editor of Polish Wikipedia as are many of the members of our Poland Wikiproject, so some of them may regard themselves as his friends and so not be completely unbiased. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different Standards for Keeping Categories vs. Keeping Articles/Neutral In order to keep an award recipient category, you just need to pass WP:OCAWARD to show the award is WP:DEFINING. (Usually I interpret that to mean that the award adds to someone's notability rather than just reflecting it.) Typically though, award categories are added to biography categories that have already demonstrated their WP:NOTABILITY. A few exceptions exist (like the Nobel Peace Price or maybe Poland's top award, the Order of the White Eagle) where the award itself is so prominent that it provides notability unto itself but this is rare and doesn't apply here from my perspective. There might be borderline cases where an award pushes a biography over the edge to meet notability but I'll defer to other editors to decide whether that's the case with this article. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment HEY. I have expanded the article to include numerous additional sources. The article now clearly and verifiably meets the General notability guideline, with multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject with significant detail. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I admire your hard work, but I'm still not convinced. Interviews with the subject are not independent sources and the reports of his monument to Wikipedia editors fall foul of WP:NOT#NEWS, and the fact that he is a Wikipedia editor himself makes this monument itself non-independent. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed out the only refs that don't satisfy GNG, and ignored the rest that do. Also, what the interviewers say about the subject outside of the interview questions is independent (not the responses of the subject obviously). I see that there isn't any convincing you though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, please point out which sources do satisfy GNG. It is not correct that there is no convincing me: if you look at my contribution history you will see that I always make every effort to see the glass as half full rather than half-empty, as I spent a couple of hours today doing here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well.

#1 is a review of one of his books, but also goes out of its way to discuss the author as well, describing his career and qualifications, as well as motivations in writing the book, much more than a trivial mention. The source seems to be a reliable one, and I can't see any evidence that he is associated with it, so it seems independent as well. Also contributes to PROF #1.

#2 This source clearly goes into significant detail, as does #3. These two sources are about the silver cross being awarded, but they also both discuss the subject in detail and describe the reasons why he won it, and other accomplishments. Both sources make a good case for notability, and these two alone would seem sufficient for GNG in my mind. Some would argue WP:BLP1E would apply if these were used alone, but it is not an event, it is an award for major contributions over a lifetime, and these contributions are detailed in a short biography by each source. In any case, it isn't being used alone.

This interview [28] contributes to GNG (though not as strongly as the three above I admit). It has a description at the bottom in italics that outlines his major accomplishments. I would consider this more than a trivial mention, though I am aware that some might disagree, especially as the title describes him as an 'expert' (or at least that is how google translates it). DW also seems to be a highly prestigious source, so it calling him an expert is no small thing (i.e. also indicating that the subject meets #1 of PROF).

That's three solid sources discussing the subject in detail, when all we need is 2. Add a bunch of 'arguable/almost' meetings for a half a dozen of the WP:PROF criteria, and even if you think GNG is marginal, it should be kept.

Also, I apologize for what I said about not being able to convince you; I accept that not everyone agrees on the definition of terms like 'significant coverage', and it tends to cause disagreement on cases like this one that are closer to the borderline, and often this can't be reconciled. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first of the sources that you offer is from the Europäische Ost-West-Akademie. From looking at its web site there is no indication that this is a reliable source. I can find no academic affiliation with any university or indication of any editorial board, or anything else that would qualify it as anything other than just a random web site. The other two sources that you offer are local newspapers just printing announcements of the minor award that the subject received along with a bit of background information obviously provided by Wojciechowski himself. Local newspapers don't have the resources to do any fact-checking of such information. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "Local newspapers don't have the resources to do any fact-checking of such information." is pretty ridiculous. That is tantamount to saying that local newspapers aren't reliable for anything, and that all journalists in local newspapers are incapable of doing basic fact checking, which is obviously false. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that journalists in local newspapers are incapable of doing basic fact checking, but that they don't have the time or resources to do so, which is why local newspapers are generally not considered to count towards notability on Wikipedia. Do you really believe that these papers did any fact-checking other than looking at the official announcement of this minor award and getting basic biographical details from Wojciechowski himself? If so then you are incredibly naïve about how local newspapers work. I'm tempted to go into further details about how I and other clearly non-notable members of my family have had local newspaper articles published about ourselves, including, but not limited to, a leading front page article about an incident that happened to my nuclear family and my daughter separately having a photograph of the back of her head covering the whole front page, but prefer not to get into too much personally identifying detail. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 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) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Founding Fathers of America[edit]

New Founding Fathers of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I do not believe that this subject is independently notable. The article has been unreferenced for months now and almost all of the content is solely plot recap. I put a prod on it a while ago which was remeoved and it was urged that the content be merged, but no discussion was ever started. Since almost all of it is plot cruft and everything is unsourced I do not personally believe that there is anything worth merging. ★Trekker (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable outside the context of the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Reywas92^Talk 06:42, 3 October 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) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Carter (actor)[edit]

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

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

Delete: non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 18:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable actor, the article even calls his roles "minor". It also lacks even one significant source. Unlike IMDb we do not seek to have articles on everyone who ever appeared in film and television. The fact that an article on such a minor person has servived since 2009 is slightly distressing. I still think it is high time we make it harder to create new articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR roles are minor as per article and also fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:35, 3 October 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) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeoWide[edit]

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

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

fails WP:NMUSIC WP:NORG and WP:GNG a search on the web threw up nothing of interest [29] as per WP:BEFORE Domdeparis (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unfortunately no real evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:28, 3 October 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 WP:CSD#R2. Article was moved to draft space and then deleted WP:CSD#G7, so all that's left to do is take care of the redirect. WP:NPASR if it shows up in mainspace again. ansh666 18:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrogames.onl[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the editor who created the page moved it to the draft space. I have nominated the redirect for speedy deletion. @The1337gamer: Please consider withdrawing this AFD as a result. --Izno (talk) 17:30, 26 September 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. Merges, if required may be discussed at t/p. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic National Assembly[edit]

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

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

Not notable. A defunct political party that got less than 500 votes in its one campaign. The "Trinidad Express" references do not work, even on archive.org. Democratic National Alliance (Trinidad and Tobago) may or may not refer to the same organization, but a similar case for deletion applies. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as per nom statement:

Democratic National Alliance (Trinidad and Tobago) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Horrible article, but isn't a party that took part in a national election notable per se? A notable source would be Nohlen, Dieter (2005). Elections in the Americas: A Data Handbook, Vol. I. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-928357-5. Kind regards, Grueslayer 06:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a party taking part in national elections is notable in itself. arguments based on number of seats won, are not applicable here when it comes to notability, else we are putting notability in the hands of votes cast rather than the sources which show that clearly this party did exist.Egaoblai (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both pages, per Egaoblai. The nominator suggests these two pages might be about the same organization. The pages themselves both describe a messy process whereby the D.N.Assembly was at one point a part of the D.N.Alliance, but then it pulled out. So the two organizations were not the same.

-- Reading these pages further, and following the links in them to other wikipedia pages (what a concept!), reveals that the D.N.Alliance then merged with another party and became the N.D.Alliance, and then this merged with the UNC to form the UNC-Alliance, which won enough seats in the 2007 election (15 out of 41) to become the official opposition.

-- Unfortunately the 2005 book suggested by Grueslayer won't help with verification of facts about parties formed in 2006. I don't see a more recent edition on Google Books. -- Gpc62 (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(as nom) I support a merge/redirect to whatever successor party actually won seats in the assembly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We should be keeping all political parties regardless of size or ideology in addition to pages on their leaders and youth sections. This is material that readers have a reason to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. File this under the policy of WP:IAR if you wanna: "Use common sense to improve the encyclopedia." Carrite (talk) 02:44, 4 October 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ansuman Roy[edit]

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

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

Unsourced article about a singer that a search on the web throws up nothing of note. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The singer is notable, verifiable from internet. But article lacks proper citation. Need polish.Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very interested if you could supply some of the sources that you have found and back up your !vote. Thanks Domdeparis (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been blocked as a sockpuppeteer that has been using multiple accounts to !vote in deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. XFhumu^Talk 17:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:52, 1 October 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) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Beauty[edit]

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

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

Articles about non-notable subjects are contrary to Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. This article is therefore being considered for deletion under Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Improvid (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could Improvid, the nominator, expand on the reasons for nomination - why is it considered to lack notability? Seventy-three salons is not an inconsiderable number. MartinJones (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that the direction we should look into is whether this page meets the requirements of WP:ORG NerudaPoet (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:CORP. mostly routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 2 October 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) 20:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bizequity[edit]

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

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill company. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. Entirely promotional. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and fail the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 3 October 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) 20:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Muhammad A. Fecto[edit]

Ghulam Muhammad A. Fecto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is not inherited. His group might be notable but he fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He appears to have been a major industrialist of the 1980s [30]. I also found some mentions on Google Books. Mar4d (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly notable, "Fecto Group owns and controls following companies and playing its due role in the industrial fields of the country under the command of its Chairman, Mr. Ghulam Mohammad A. Fecto" ([31]) .... "A.Fecto, the founder of the Fecto group was known as Ghulam Mohammed Adamjee.in East Pakistan but while setting up the business in West Pakistan, now Pakistan, he dropped the name Adamjee in favor of the acronym Fecto and thus"([32]), "...he is a well-known Industrialist of East Pakistan..." ([33]) --Soman (talk) 10:37, 30 September 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) 20:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecopack[edit]

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

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

No in-depth coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:54, 3 October 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. SoWhy 14:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SATUMA[edit]

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

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

No in-depth coverage found. Fails WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG, its products are used by the Pakistani military [34] [35] Mar4d (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:INHERITORG which says 'No inherited notability'. Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Greenbörg (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nomination. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:56, 2 October 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgia Mondani[edit]

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

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

This article smacks of a promo piece designed to promote the subject's web site. there is only 1 reliable source which is the NY times piece the others are almost exclusively blogs about watches. 1: a photo 2: tudor passion is a blog affiliated to her club [36] 3: NY Times 4: blog where the subject talks about herself 5: article written by the subject 6: doesn't mention the subject 7: tudor passion affiliated blog see above 8: rewrite of the NY times article 9: promo for her and her father's book that starts with "My friends, Giorgia and Guido Mondani are pictured below and they are from Italy. The Mondani's publish the most beautiful Rolex books in the world" 10: blog about watches containing a review of her and her father's book 11: a blog which starts with "I’d like to personally thank Guido and Giorgia Mondani for compiling it and for the honour of personally giving me a copy." Domdeparis (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a website for personal promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not for personal promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fa (talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well, if we have NY Times article about this, this is more then relevant then. And also, other sources looks ok, some are not, but some are. I dont think this is for deletion. --Axiomus (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spammy / promotional. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tartan Films releases[edit]

List of Tartan Films releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CATALOG. No evidence of notability. --woodensuperman 14:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Please see the following AfDs from around the same time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HBO video releases (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases. --woodensuperman 13:59, 3 October 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. This is very close to a delete consensus but I am erring on the side of caution. No unique controversy that would warrant an extraordinary third relist. A Train^talk 09:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Guzman[edit]

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

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

Delete Entirely promotional, no indications of notability. References fail the criteria for establishing notability as they rely either exclusively on PRIMARY sources (interviews), or are unreliable or unestablished sources (e.g. Weekbit) or are unattributed references that request submissions for profiling (e.g. greatestphysiques.com) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional Bluebonnet07 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The general notability guidelines for inclusion within Wikipedia require that the subject of the article has received significant third-party coverage. Guzman has been covered as the primary subject by:
  1. Bodybuilding.com (one of the top publishers in the bodybuilding world): [37].
  2. Train Magazine (cover athlete): [38]
  3. Houstonia Magazine: [39]
  4. People Magazine: [40]

This coverage is significant because it "addresses the topic directly and in detail", reliable because these are major publishers with demonstrated "editorial integrity", and independent because they are secondary sources synthesized from interviews with Guzman. Taken altogether, the general notability guidelines are satisfied word by word. Malinaccier (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment You say "they are secondary sources synthesized from interviews with Guzman" and that's the problem. They aren't "synthesized" enough. There's no independent opinion and analyis. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. The articles are not transcripts of interviews and they have their own authors. They are secondary synthesis of information from primary interviews. Malinaccier (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • As per WP:CORPDEPTH, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources fail the criteria for establishing notability. From WP:ORGIND, other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. I can't explain it any better. You say the interviews are not transcripts - but that isn't the test. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 23:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is an essay about interviews. From WP:INTERVIEW: "Some interviews combine both primary and secondary material, very similar to a book that contains well-researched content in addition to autobiographical material. In general, written interviews published by reliable sources are not simple transcripts, but are edited by the publishing organization, and this may qualify them as secondary." These sources discuss Guzman and use material from an interview to provide additional quotations. Malinaccier (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some references that fail the criteria for establishing notability can, in fact, be used to substantiate claims and this essay appears to address this aspect when fact-checking articles. A smaller subset of those same references meet the criteria for establishing notability which is a stricter bar. One of the fundamental requirements for establishing notability is that the references must be intellectually independent - perhaps with some independent opinions or analysis included in the reference. In my opinion, only your fourth reference from people.com comes close - and its a gossip column with unsubstantiated details that should not (cannot?) be relied on (unreliable). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Good discussion but Malinaccier has won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete published interviews with a subject are not indepdent, 3rd-party reliable sources, not enough to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 23 September 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. A Train^talk 07:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Mya[edit]

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

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

Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong sourcing for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG — the strongest claim here is of the "got X number of views on a piece of social media content" variety, which is not a Wikipedia inclusion freebie. She does not pass WP:NMUSIC #5 for having signed to Caroline Records, as her two existing albums were released independently, with her Caroline debut still forthcoming, and she does not pass NMUSIC #10 for the implications of a connection to the television series Nashville, because her music was never used in that series — her two independent releases consisted of covers of songs which were featured in that show via other people's versions rather than hers. And for referencing, this is sourced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources and a Q&A interview in which she's speaking about herself rather than being written about in the third person by somebody other than her — literally the only acceptable reliable source here is a "local girl shoots for the big time" piece in her hometown's weekly community pennysaver. There's also a WP:COI, as the creator has been confirmed per the conflict of interest noticeboard as a paid PR editor. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which aspiring musicians get to have articles to help promote themselves while they try to make it — making it comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she can be properly sourced as actually passing an NMUSIC criterion, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here are enough to already get her into Wikipedia today. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:52, 3 October 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. There are two arguments being made to keep here: neither of them are particularly well-rooted in policy. One of them is by a brand-new user with no edits outside this subject, which long-standing convention suggests I am correct in discounting. Rhadow has written a strong nomination and the points raised in it have not been effectively rebutted. A Train^talk 19:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RIMS Risk Maturity Model[edit]

RIMS Risk Maturity Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article describes a method and software to assess risk which is not yet notable.
The references provided are a walled garden of two WP articles (this one and its producer company LogicManager) and three websites or portions: the software company's website logicmanager.com, a product promotion website riskmaturitymodel.com, and the resources portion of an industry trade group Trade group resources tab.
Of the ten references given for this article, the following are either from sites controlled by the subject, authored by the subject, or are from press releases: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) and (10).
A journal article (6) describes a positive effect from the use of the method, but appears not to assert notability according to WP:GNG.
The two articles have been created by two SPAs, one of whom is the only defender of the LogicManager article at its AfD discussion. The company does at least $15 Million a year in sales, but it's third in its marketspace. One of competitors has an article, the other not. It appears both articles were created primarily for the purpose of promotion Rhadow (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I’m new to Wikipedia, but I have done research in the past on ERM, and the RMM came up a lot in my research, so I am familiar with this subject and figured I’d take a crack at updating the page. Per Rhadow 's comment, I agree that the sources weren’t on par with WP’s independent sources stipulation. So I took the liberty of removing all sources that linked back to RIMS website, LogicManager’s website, and any press releases, and replaced them with independent third-party sources.

On to the aspect of your argument that deems this page promotional, I’m not sure I agree. RIMS is a non-profit educational organization, and the assessment is completely free for anyone to use, so this particular wiki page isn’t really selling anything.

On to whether the RMM is notable, I really think it is. The study you mentioned concludes that organizations who score highly on the RMM tend to be valued in the market 25% more than organizations who don’t. That is HUGE both for corporations in all industries and the risk management industry. The study was also conducted by a preeminent university in Europe in a peer-reviewed academic journal. It doesn’t get more independent and neutral than that I’d say. Access to this journal costs money, which WP does not have a problem with I believe, but in the interest of knowledge sharing, I’ve added a citation to a source that summarizes the study. Found here:http://www.riskmanagementmonitor.com/strong-erm-program-gives-companies-higher-market-value/

Another proof point of this model’s significance is that is has been recognized by the Executive Office of the President and the Office of Management and Budget as a way organizations can develop an effective ERM program, the development of which is lawfully required by all agencies. I’ve added in a paragraph to the wiki page detailing this notability. Source here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-17.pdf Outlier11 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Observation -- Outlier11 the article reads, "Over 2,400 organizations have baselined their ERM maturity with the RIMS Risk Maturity Model for ERM." Given the author of the reference, the quote could as easily be, "I'm telling you that 2,400 organizations used a software tool my company builds, based on a method I invented, to generate a lead." As a new encyclopedia contributor, a member of the press, you need to be a bit more skeptical in your acceptance of assertions made by interested persons. Take, for example, the link to http://riskmaturitymodel.com. That's not an intellectually-independent reliable source. The page is clearly promotional; it is copyrighted by the organization that just had its article deleted for being promotional.

As to the parallels to the CMM -- that model was published in its entirety by the SEI, against which an organization could be assessed or audited. One was free to engage in a self-administered baselining exercise, but it had no meaning. In any case, the model itself was available for the public to see. I haven't seen the RMM itself. Based on the references in this article, I'm guessing you haven't either. Rhadow (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rhadow, unfortunately, someone undid the updates I made before you had a chance to look. All of the updates are there now. The person who removed them did not understand that we are allowed to edit a page during the deletion discussion, in fact, it is encouraged per wiki guidelines. I have removed the line you pointed out as promotional, as I agree it is not necessary information. To your other comments, the RMM is also free and open to the public. Anyone can look at the model and take the assessment. It is not at all gated. So yes, I have seen it. Outlier11(talk) 17:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Outlier11 for a first-time editor, you are well acquainted with the WP protocol. The RMM is not published in any of the links. That would be a good link. When I tried to access the baselining exercise, it was not free. It was behind a paywall that required me to join RIMS. Rhadow (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rhadow, here is the link to the RMM: https://www.rims.org/resources/ERM/Pages/RiskMaturityModel.aspx If you think it would be a valuable add to the page, by all means! When accessing the assessment, you don't have to join RIMS or pay any money to them, you just simply create a user name and password to access the RMM. This is pretty standard when accessing most published, copyrighted material. Outlier11

• Delete -- a non notable invention and part of a walled garden around LogicManager, since deleted. Both articles were being edited by the same set of editors, and the promotional intent here is quite clear. Beyond that, lacks sufficient in-depth coverage for stand-alone notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Risk maturity models are part of risk mgt theory and RIMS is well known in the field. Basis of AfD seem to be around the original editor rather than actual notability. Oblivy (talk)
• Delete - I was really hoping to find one keep today, but looking at the current sourcing and doing a Google search hasn't turned up enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be much here. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:04, 4 October 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) 20:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Geyrhalter[edit]

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

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

There is lots of name dropping in the article, but there is no substantial coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources, i.e. he fails WP:ANYBIO. Rentier (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sign of notability, and the article is perhaps also mildly promotional. 213.205.198.196 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable advertising exec and businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 27 September 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) 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Radtke[edit]

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

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above - coverage and credits to date fall short of WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR, respectively.  gongshow  talk  08:27, 3 October 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) 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Udayan Duwara[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NACTOR just not enough experience and lack of awards. Legacypac (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR at this time.  gongshow  talk  08:29, 3 October 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. G4, recreation with out change of previously deleted article. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Ghooi[edit]

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

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

Cleanly fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article has been deleted earlier and nothing new has been added to the article. Does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia.

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) 20:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Masters (broadcaster)[edit]

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

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

The one source linked has been 404 since 2007 (at least according to the Wayback Machine). Searching for other references is complicated by false positives for Ian Masters (journalist) and Ian Masters (songwriter) and even Ian Masters (academic) This Ian Masters generates mere passing mentions (e.g., [41], [42], [43], [44]) and one BBC remembrance of Radio Norfolk with some minor mentions . No indication of significant coverage in reliable independent, sources as WP:GNG requests and (once false positives are weeded out) no evidence that this person qualifies as notable under any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- an unremarkable anchorman; no indications of notability or significance, and no sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 28 September 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. The "delete" arguments seem to be veering into personal attacks and did not challenge the sources supplied by the "keep" !voters sufficiently. Because the conversation is getting personal, I am not inclined to relist this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens' Coalition[edit]

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

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

Per request on my talk page for editors not familiar with en-wiki AFD. See this permalink to the discussion for the editors' reasoning. Personally, I have no opinion about the subject. SoWhy 14:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not enough significant coverage in independent WP:RS. Of the nine sources in the article four are from the party itself, one (Wilderäng) is a blog, two are links to official records that verify that the party exist and only two are from a news source. There are some more mentions in WP:RS that are not as of now included as sources, but not enough to reach notability. FWIW, the article about the party has been deleted as non-notable on the Swedish Wikipedia, citing that they haven't gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and that no representative for the party has been elected in a public election . (I know that the last criterion isn't included in WP:N, but I think that it's relevant to the discussion about notability.)Sjö (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not see myself as eligible to vote since I have been inactive here for several years. But you should be aware of that the name "Medborgerlig Samling" has been used by more than one Swedish political party. sv:Medborgerlig samling for example existed in the 1960's. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, I had forgotten about that article. For those of you that don't read Swedish, it's about a 1964-1968 cooperation between right and center-right parties. It has nothing to do with the current party with the same name.Sjö (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I'm affiliated with the party I cannot vote. However, I'd like to point out a few things: Google turns out about 23k hits for "Medborgerlig Samling" https://www.google.se/search?source=hp&q=%22medborgerlig+samling%22. The party has representatives in at least two municipalities that I know of (Laholm and Sollentuna). It currently has about 1200 members which would make it the third largest of the parties outside of the Swedish Parliament and likely the fastest growing. As for the situation in Swedish wikipedia – things got very heated in those discussions and the decision to remove was certainly not unanimous. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few recent links:

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/kahlin-och-klinker-lämnar-m-för-annat-parti-1.4124850

http://www.expressen.se/ledare/susanna-birgersson/medborgerlig-samling-sa-sansade-att-de-inte-syns-/

http://www.corren.se/nyheter/norrkoping/nya-partier-siktar-pa-riksdagen-om4810123.aspx

https://mitti.se/nyheter/parti-entre-vasby/

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/stora-planer-for-nya-partiet

• Keep. As has been pointed out above, there exists plenty of coverage in independent media, and the party itself represents an important rational new perspective in Swedish politics. The original discussion seems like a thinly veiled attempt to prevent the larger public from getting informed about its existence. David A (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote myself from the main talk page for the article:

I would argue that given the constantly increasing massive amounts of crime and other social problems (355000 elderly in poverty, lack of social security even for gravely disabled, falling education and health care standards, widespread Islamism, etcetera) following the enormous immigration to Sweden from the 3rd world, it is inevitable that the parties that openly talk about said problems and promise to do something about them will continuously grow, no matter how much the Orwellian censorship and thought crime advocates attempt to stop it.

Currently we have to choose between the Sweden Democrats, who have an extremely suspicious history, and the Citizens' Coalition, who are not privately any more extreme than the sentiments that they are openly advocating.

As such, it is in Sweden's best long-term interest to allow awareness of a party that can counteract the Sweden Democrats, and play well with the traditional alternatives. From a rational perspective, your combined efforts to shut them up are strongly playing against your own interests, and it would be much preferable to search for news articles and other references to improve the quality of this page rather than delete it outright. David A (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The reasons:
  1. The party has existed since only 2016 (came to be through a party split from another really small party founded 2014).
  2. There are almost no coverage of the party in the media besides in some alternative media (and almost nothing there either besides bloggs they control) and the parties own debate articles.
  3. The party has no sets in any parliament (local, regional, or national).
  4. The party claims to have 1000 members but the number is much lower.
  5. There are no indipendent sources about the party (at the moment the party writes its own article on Wikipedia).

In short: not relevant for an article on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the party leadership has made it clear that they wish to use Wikipedia for their 2018 election campagn, and been very agressive towards Wikipedia in their effort to do so. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and it shows how small the party really is. Dnm (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite an accusation Dnm, it also happens to be rather wrong:

1- That the party is - in fact - the same as the party called "Borgerlig Framtid" from 2014 is verifiable from here: https://www.ratsit.se/8024883467-MEDBORGERLIG_SAMLING where it is obvious that this is indeed the party registered 2014-05-01. Compare this to the splinter group: https://www.ratsit.se/8025044184-BORGERLIG_FRAMTID which is registered 2016-09-22.

2- Secondly, the media links above are just some recent coverage. "Almost no coverage" is clearly not a well defined word.

3- It is also untrue that the party has no seats in any parliament. They have at least 5 (might be more) in local assemblies. They were not elected there on the party name obviously – the party hardly existed during the election of 2014 – but that is not the same as them not having representation.

4- The actual number of members is closer to 1200. Since this is not independently verifiable (membership figures for political parties are not official in Sweden), the only figure we have are the self-reported ones. Your claim is basically that they lie here: https://www.medborgerligsamling.se/medborgerlig-samling-har-passerat-1-000-medlemmar/. Of course, you have nothing to support this claim, but just state this as a fact. However, I am not aware of a single journalist or political analyst challenging those numbers. So this again is painting a false picture of the situation.

5- Finally the claim that there are no independent sources about the party. Again, this is contradicted by the wikipedia article itself, which uses independent sources for everything except to reference the politics advocated by the party. The articles above, describing the party in similar terms as the wikipedia article also clearly contradicts this.

Since you, Adville, Yger and a few more have been very active in trying to remove the party from Swedish wikipedia, consider if you are really impartial in the matter of this article. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have not only tried, we have removed it through a broad consensus. You are not relevant (yet). And about the question of being impartial, you and the rest of the MED leadership has terrorized Swedish Wikipedia for months, backtalking us, trying to disclose user identities, sending hordes of trolls our way and so on. And, your account was created för one reason, and One Reason only: To edit and defend your party MED. The users you are listning as non impartial has been active on Wikipedia for 5-10 years and even more, editing thousends of articles. So, think again about what impartial means.

The claims i have made above stands and has been proven on Swedish Wikipedia. Now you and your party are just trying to find a backdoor into Swedish Wikipedia. Dnm (talk) 08:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such baseless accusations. There has only been one (1) account affiliated with the party (this one). This is clearly seen in the discussions on Swedish wikipedia. "The MED leadership has terrorized"... I am frankly astounded that you can make such bold-faced lies without a single reference to back it up. If these claims "have been proven", then it should be easy to link to references proving them instead of stating that they are proven. Note that I am the one linking to independent articles proving my statements, whereas you, with accusations and the argument "it has been proven on Swedish Wikipedia", do not.

Even if we should take Swedish Wikipedia as an authority your statements are proven false. For example, the claim 1000+ members was indeed raised there, but no-one challenged it – it was simply dismissed as "not especially impressive" (See LPfi "5 september 2017 kl. 13.42" sv:Diskussion:Medborgerlig_Samling_(2014)). This was a problem in the Swedish Wikipedia discussion too. Lots of unsubstantiated "facts" being thrown around, with minimum references / proof.

I'll back out of the discussion at this point. I trust English wikipedia users to see for themselves who is using facts / and who is using opinions + accusations in the discussion. The sample above is rather representative of the level of discussion on Swedish WP. You yourself called on any discussion on the party to be removed immediately and indiscriminately: "Diskussion ska inte uppmuntras istället sja inläggen raderas. dnm" ("Discussion should not be encouraged, instead comments should be erased") (again, see sv:Diskussion:Medborgerlig_Samling_(2014))

Hmc1282171021 (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, according to what sjö and dnm says. The plenty of coverage in media is mostly for the old party from the 60th. The two seats mentioned that they have in a local parlament are member from other parties that have changed party during this Electoral period, they were not vote in (and are called political wild). As long as there are almost no coverage in the papers we can not write an independent article about this small and only one year old party. (I was also involved in the discussions on svwp about this party and have tried to read a lot about it to see if we could keep it as a neutral article. The lack of sources and the short period of existence made the answer no there too) Adville (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Hmc1282171021, tell your friends to not harrasing me on my Swedish user page because I voted no here and protected the old party page for Medborgerlig samling. Now I had to protect my page too. (For english readers, this had been a topic on svwp since summer. Just because they have some ground soliders that know how to use internet and create trolls we shall not accept their party as an article until we find it relevant -eg more than 3-4 local papers) Adville (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adville, I sincerely have no idea what you are talking about. AND I must question why you're making these made up accusations on this deletion page in the first place. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this that happened today. And it is related to this discussion. Adville (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above, and as Adville states no proper analys exist from an trustworthy third-party source. So besides lack of notabality it is also impossible to write a neutral verified article of the subject.Yger (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well referenced article about a serious party that unfortunately is hit by campaign trying to keep it off Wikipedia. Hepcat65 (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If the party is serious or not is of no interest. And the article is not well referenced:

1. The first source is the MED-partyblogg.
2. The second source is the MED-party homepage.
3. The third source is the MED-party homepage.
4. The forth source is an article based on a MED-pressrelease with a few questions asked.
5. The fifth source is a MED-pressrelease.
6. The sixth source is a blogg.
7. The seventh source is a automatic register which lists everything that has a identification number (a person or organization/corporation).
8. The eighth source is a automatic register which lists every party who said that they wants to run for election.
9. The ninth source is the MED-party homepage.

Do you seriously mean that this is well referenced? My guess is that you have ties to the party itself, no one else would consider this passable...

The party writes its own article. Be honest about that. There is nothing here. No third party sources or anything with substance besides what the party wants to say about itself. Dnm (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In Sweden it's becoming an ever increasing embarrassment for Wikipedia that there exists no Swedish page for the party. People from the general public, who read about the party in the press and in social media, on instinct go to Swedish Wikipedia for more information, but are surprised to find none, having to turn to English Wikipedia instead. This is not about what's good or bad for the party, or whether the page is good or bad; it's about expectations on Wikipedia. OutphilosopherS (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to us Swedes how we are doing wrong when we erase an article because of poor sources, when we have tried for 2-3 months to find good ones. We on svwp thinks it is no good to have a pov article just because we must have an article, and this is not the only party wanting to have an article because of the election. This is the platform to show we exist. Wikipedia should not be an electoral propaganda machine just because the party has not yet done an impact on media. I know we will have a good article about the party whithin a year, but we can not allow us to make it a pov article just for the sake of existing. So please explain how you think about the sources here and not only "find sources" for we are now newcommers, we know how to find sources. Adville (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adville Aside from the links above, here is a sample of articles in independent media that should have been straightforward to find by googling:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/varmland/kdu-s-ordforande-avgar

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/varmland/borgerliga-alltfor-vanstervridna

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22244247.ab

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/uteslutningshotade-moderater-haller-presskonferens?

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ost/rolf-k-nilsson-lamnar-moderaterna

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/risken-ar-att-det-blir-kattskit-av-alltihop

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/laholms-kommun-jo-anmals

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/02/17/de-har-kickat-igang-valrorelsen-till-2018/

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/03/20/partier-kommer-overklaga-till-forvaltningsratten/

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/02/01/vildar-far-flytta-till-eget-horn/

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/02/02/nytt-forsok-fa-bort-kahlin/

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/08/26/kahlin-har-gjort-allt-vad-jag-kunnat/

http://www.laholmstidning.se/2017/03/20/forskoleprotest-i-ranneslov/

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/ingen-extern-utredning-av-läckta-personakter-1.4674176

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/politiker-vill-stötta-visselblås-1.4601307

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/mikael-kahlin-jo-anmäler-laholms-kommun-1.4583325

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/kahlin-kommunen-mörklägger-1.4570611

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/oppositionen-pratar-ihop-sig-inför-valet-1.4371575

http://www.hallandsposten.se/nyheter/laholm/kommunråd-kräver-besked-från-kahlin-1.4180639

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=128&artikel=6641722

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=128&artikel=6641100

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/skane/smapartierna-vinner-mark-i-skane

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/svtforum/alliansen-utmanas?

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=93&artikel=6370525

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=112&artikel=6473769

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=159&artikel=6473265

http://www.dagensopinion.se/josefin-utas-tar-plats-borgerlig-framtids-partistyrelse

http://www.dagensopinion.se/moderaterna-som-borgerlig-framtid-värvat-över

http://www.dagensopinion.se/c-och-sd-avhopp-ger-borgerlig-framtid-plats-fullmäktige

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-värvar-värmlands-kdu-bas

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-vill-ha-finsk-läroplikt

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-tvingas-byta-namn-maktstrid

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-så-skapar-vi-riktigt-jobbskapande-näringspolitik

http://www.dagensopinion.se/de-hoppade-c-och-m-borgerlig-framtid

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-sprider-svenska-våren

http://www.dagensopinion.se/borgerlig-framtid-hottar-upp-både-sajten-och-partiprogrammet

http://www.dagensopinion.se/sveriges-nya-parti-medborgerlig-samling

http://www.dagensopinion.se/moderaternas-konkurrent-vi-växer-så-knakar

http://www.dagensopinion.se/de-startar-konkurrent-till-moderaterna

http://www.dagensopinion.se/nystartat-parti-ställer-upp-riksdagsvalet

http://www.dagensopinion.se/medborgerlig-samling-jo-anmäler-myndigheten-samhällsskydd-och-beredskap

http://www.dagensopinion.se/politiskt-parti-sällar-sig-till-jo-anmälarna-mot-svenska-institutet

http://makthavare.se/2017/07/03/de-ar-smapartierna-som-krigar-om-utrymmet-i-visby/

http://makthavare.se/2016/02/11/utas-outas-lamnar-miljopartiet-for-borgerlig-framtid/

http://makthavare.se/2015/04/27/borgerlig-framtid-vill-utmana-alliansen-och-sd/

If you would like a sample of the actual politics the party advocates (instead of reading on their site) you could have a look at a sample of the opinion pieces published in major media:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/halland/stora-planer-for-nya-partiet?

https://www.svt.se/opinion/wallgren-malmberg-lenke-om-jarva

https://www.svt.se/opinion/nya-vapendirektivet-ogenomtankt-symbolpolitik?

https://www.svt.se/opinion/jamstalldhet-ar-inte-detsamma-som-likhet

https://www.svt.se/opinion/svar-till-spf-seniorerna

http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/debatt-kvp/forhandla-inte-bort-rattsstaten/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/detta-sager-nagonting-sorgligt-om-var-tid/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/freda-landslagen-fran-sana-har-pr-jippon/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/sd-kommer-att-fa-minst-25-procent-2018/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/ingenting-forskonas-nar-allt-politiseras/

http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/a/84yP1/toppuppdragen-gar-till-regeringstrogna

http://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/debatt-kvp/minska-utjamnings-bidraget-till-malmo/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/vilka-grupper-ska-det-lagstiftas-om-harnast/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/konskvotering-ar-inte-jamstalldhet/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/mp-har-forlorat-sin-sjal--nu-lamnar-jag-partiet/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/bojkotten-av-sd-far-inte-ga-fore-allt-annat/

http://www.expressen.se/gt/ledare/debatt-krafttag-mot-skottlossningar-nu/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/slang-inte-bidrag-efter-privata-klubbar-1/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/dags-att-satta-stopp-for-roffarmentaliteten/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/vad-bidrar-jag-med-som-en-man-inte-kan/

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/debatt/politisk-korruption-har-blivit-vardagsmat-1.4382139

If you are still unable to find any facts about the party given the above, let me know and I'll google some more for you. Hmc1282171021 (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given all of the above sources, it seems much preferable to simply work on improving the article by using them, than to make a group effort to attempt to delete it outright. All of this seems extremely dishonest and partisan. David A (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is now more than clear that also David A is a MED-user-account. Do improve the article about your party instead of calling other dishonest and partisan. The only ones thats dishonest and partisan are the many MED-accounts that are pushing an agenda towards Wikipedia (on and outside of the project). Dnm (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that is just what we say in Sweden: Debate and opinion articles from the own party are not independent news. Please we who understand swedish and are not in this party can see through your bias and pov. So tiresome. Adville (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adville. Those were 45 news articles on top (not debate/opinion ones). The later 21 opinion pieces was just for reference (as I wrote) to see the actual political messages - in case references to that was needed. You claimed you had found no good articles while searching for 2-3 months.

You cannot possibly claim that the 45 articles mentioned here are debate/opinion pieces. Even non-swedish speakers should be able to use google translate to assure themselves of the accuracy of my statements. Are you perhaps claiming that despite all these articles on the party you're completely unable to gather any verifiable facts on the party? If so, how is that possible?

Is the article inaccurate and biased? Fine, improve it! I didn't write any of it, nor was I involved in the edits. I can think of ways to improve it too, but I don't want to do any edits due to my affiliation with the party. Or are you saying "it's biased, lets remove it!" – dismissing it on grounds of neutrality instead of relevance? If so, why is it impossible to improve it using those 45 articles above as a starting point?

Also, the method of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a "MED-user-account" is an attempt at guilt by association. This was used on the SvWiki which led to group banning of wildly different accounts only because they did not agree with you: "Only MED-supporters can support this page, consequently, anyone who supports having this page is a MED-supporter".

Furthermore you also neglect to mention that several admins did not agree with the decision to remove the page, even on the SvWiki (where the bar for having a page on a political party is – inexplicably – much higher than other types of organizations).

So please, can we have a discussion based on actual facts please? I have shown these 45 articles, so clearly there *are* independent articles. We've hopefully also established (despite Dnm's claims to the contrary) that the party does have a membership of over 1000. Which then would make it the third largest party outside of the Swedish parliament after F! and PP. EnWP clearly has no particular bias against smaller parties, and they are mentioned here with pages and yet you do not target them for deletion requests. So what in particular is it that makes it important that Citizens' Coalition is deleted? I think Yger even filed for a quick delete of the page originally. Is there some real argument to be had, or does the argument boil down to "it's not allowed on the SvWiki, so it can't be shown here either"? Hmc1282171021 (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am not a member of any party, as I find all of the major ones distasteful and/or irrational and fundamentalist for one reason or another (not to mention that I am kept far too busy to be politically active), but I have read articles about the Citizens' Coalition lately, and find their politics interesting. Given your collaborative resolve to see the article expunged from any version of Wikipedia, even ones where you are othervise inactive, you seem far more biased than myself. David A (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well established, although small, officially registered political party that fulfills the EnWP’s notability criteria. Can’t see how SvWP’s decision should guide the decision here. If the subject matter reaches the relevant criteria – then keep. I’ll keep on working on it, adding the references above (Thnx!)Possible Declaration (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this Aftonbladet article [45] states that in 2016 a Member Riksdag Josefin Utas (who should have an article as a member of a national legislature) left the Environmental Party to join this Party. Also Note that party name is rendered Borgerlig Fremtid in Aftonbladet and, while I am not certain which usage is more common, it may be important to search both spellings. Searching "Medborgerlig Samling" + "Josefin Utas" on gNews [46] produces more than sufficient validation of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per my searches above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory. Thanks for your try to research this. I notice your are not Swedish and therefor your are neutral. I have however to say you were mislead by the language barriere. She was only in a local parliament and wanted to be elected to the riksdag. She wasnt. So she should not have an article here nor does it make this party valid for an own article yet. Best regards Adville (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Despite my error, the news coverage of this local politician, does offer WP:SIGCOV of this party. As do many of ther sources cited by editors above. And there are some English-language sourced, such as this 2017 Master's degree thesis Intersects of nationalism and populism in Swedish parliamentary elections. I continue to opine Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again E.M.Gregory, but the mentioning in that master is about the Old party from the 60th. It is not the same party. Adville (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage of this party, including coverage related to Josefin Utas is, nevertheless, valid WP:SIGCOV of this new party. a quick read for English speaking editors can be found at this counter-narrrative blog, [BOYCOTT OF THE SWEDEN DEMOCRATS FINALLY LOOKING STUPID TO OTHER PARTIES, which links to background stories.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia:Notability evident per extensive coverage in national and regional public as well as private media, as argued. As for objections to efforts of ostracism by a few Swedish user accounts regarding the introduction of this article, for convenience please consider addressing such concerns on Wikipedia talk:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that at least 3 administrators on the Swedish Wikipedia appear to be determined to censor all public information about a valid political party, is quite disconcerting in terms of the requirements of a fact-focused NPOV professional perspective. Especially if this is an indication of how they are othervise doing their jobs. David A (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a new political party in Sweden but its leading members have been quite present in the political debate with high-profile articles, etc. I am not affiliated with the party but I have read several of their articles. abelson (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Sjö and Adville. I've read a lot of the sources given here, and would not consider them to confer notability, though if it changes during election season I might reconsider. A lot of the mentions are in passing, and focus more on the specific defected politicians (and their former party) who seem adept at getting their names and faces in local newspapers. The arguments on Swedish Wikipedia also looked convincing to me. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:29, 3 October 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. SoWhy 14:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Khethiri[edit]

Abdullah Al-Khethiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - According to Soccerway and SL Stat (via Google Translate), this footballer's highest achievement was a single 10-minute substitute appearance in a Saudi first-level league match during the 2014–15 season. Without some evidence of GNG-compliance, we have a long-standing consensus to delete these types of sub-stub BLPs. Jogurney (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet notability requirements for soccer players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:FOOTY and is consensus in sport is general is not to delete currently playing players who pass WP:NSPORT and it would mean a player can be deleted just after making his debut.If the player has retired it would be different but he is still currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pharaoh of the Wizards: could you tell us which of the criteria in WP:NFOOTY he meets. I may have missed something. Domdeparis (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see it's the 10min substitute appearance. Please don't forget this was 3 years ago and he is now playing 3rd division and does not meet GNG. The topic specific guidelines are only there to avoid speedy and prodding. The articles still have to meet GNG as per the FAQ at the top of the page. The player is 33 now and it is unlikely that he will return to top tier matches. A 10 minute appearance 3 years ago is unlikely to have guaranteed enough coverage for him to meet GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He does technically meet WP:NFOOTBALL, but that only asserts a "presumption" of notability. With only 10 minutes in a single fully professional league game, and that several years ago, according to his profile I'd want to see a bit of coverage somewhere. Even the Arabic pages seem to only have vague stats and no in depth about him. NFOOTBALL is only to provide bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. With more FPL time, or if he was just starting out and played that time this year, or international appearance I'd accept that likelihood, but this subject fails WP:GNG and I see no likelihood that will change any time soon. ClubOranje^T 11:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one substitute appearances a number years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG, particularly when the player is at an age where he is nearing the end of his professional career. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]