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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Miller[edit]

Blair Miller (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:JOURNALIST. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a local braodcast journalist, no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no WP:SIGCOV exists, nothing to indicate significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find sources written by him but not about him. As a procedural note, this article has been deleted before. I restored the original text (to show WP:G4 was not appropriate) but was reverted by the nominator of this AfD with no comment. I have restored the original history so people can cross-compare the differences. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails gng - no SIGCOV DocumentError (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green printing[edit]

Green printing (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)

Basically an essay on a concept that's not much of an encyclopedic topic. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This was the fifth attempt by the "E-commerce Marketing Team Lead / PPC & SEO" of a print cartridge refill company to create a spammy fork of the existing articles that cover cartridge refill, and where the previous four attempts were redirected: toner refill, ink cartridge#Refills and third party replacements, and toner cartridge. Doesn't quite qualify for db-a10, but WP:NOTESSAY, WP:ADMASK, WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:POVFORK apply. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a fork. Szzuk (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No an encyclopedic article but a essay piece WP:NOTESSAY and WP:REDUNDANTFORK . CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Rapson[edit]

Rip Rapson (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:BIO. No references, since article was created in 2004. Some coverage but seems to be the foundations. scope_creep (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Was created as a redirect in 2004, made into an article in 2008. There appears to be either a COI or a SPA in 2008 riprapson, last edited in Nov/2008, so I doubt the ping will be successful. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it would seem like somebody could come up with an article for this guy that actually has some references. But since the article has been around since 2004/2008 nobody has. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt obvious COI, although that is not a particularly strong reason on its own for deletion. There are a few good sources out there in the Detroit Free Press. However the coverage is mostly just namechecks of him doing his job, getting quoted. When you add the low notability and the COI, it's time to delete.104.163.158.37 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why salt? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:45, 9 April 2018 (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. Courcelles (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White Christmas (Deana Martin album)[edit]

White Christmas (Deana Martin album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod. Not all albums made by notable artists are notable (Wikipedia:INHERITED.) DB entry at AllMusic (https://www.allmusic.com/album/white-christmas-mw0002299554) has no reviewer rating or review. I'll grant that there may be some offline sources that may support notability, but it's been more than three years since such sources were requested and nothing was forthcoming. I'm left to assume that the album fails WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there are no refs. Szzuk (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Is that a vote based on the current state of the article, or after doing the research? WP:NEXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I googled it, i should more correctly have said there are no worthwhile refs, there is one primary ref in the article and a paragraph elsewhere which I remember seeing, i was being a bit lazy, I'm happy to reconsider the vote if you come up with good refs. Szzuk (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Note that Deana Martin's live performances of the song "White Christmas" have received media notice, but this album apparently has not. I can find no coverage beyond routine listings of its existence. Here is one very brief review: [1], but there is not much else, not even at AllMusic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration in Europe[edit]

Exploration in Europe (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)

Contains no useful information. Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Ditto. Acnetj (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MT Train^Talk 07:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Other than some of the notorious fake Somali towns and some speedy deleted articles, this is the most non-article i've ever seen.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a big nothingburger with a side of dictionary soup. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medford Community Cablevision, Inc.[edit]

Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. (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)

Local public access station, fails WP:GNG & controversy section falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Also appears to have folded. Most of the sourcing is blogs. It's possible notability claim is that it won the ""Overall Excellence in Public Television"" award. However, the award does not seem to be notable and I don't see any independent reliable source coverage of it. Rusf10 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the award seems significant and they produce/produced quite a lot of original content which is one of the notability considerations for television channels Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We do not give presumptive notability because an award "seems" significant; we give it because an award is significant. The bar to clear there isn't these "Hometown Media Awards" for which there are only five Google News cites [2], all but one of them casual mentions from the same Long Island weekly website, but Emmy Awards, and I would appreciate Atlantic306 clarifying what exactly about these awards they feel is significant enough to meet the GNG. Certainly no hometown community access cable station does, without some extraordinary evidence that hasn't been submitted. Ravenswing 19:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

was assuming AGF where the article states: "Medford Community Cablevision has been internationally recognized by the Alliance for Community Media in 2008 and 2011 for "Overall Excellence in Public Television"; the highest award presented to a public access facility" Atlantic306 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AGF applies to article content. Claims made in an article must be backed up by reliable sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Especially where facts in an article are being challenged (or when the subject's notability's being challenged), we don't just swallow an article's assertions uncritically. Quite possibly these awards are the highest this "Alliance for Community Media" (and I note its own article is cited only from its own website) proffers, but seeing as these awards have barely been noticed by small town media in only two areas, I really rather doubt this claim of "international" recognition, and the notion that they're more prestigious than regional Emmys -- which have been given to public broadcasting and are not always themselves taken as prima facie proof of notability -- is farcical. Truth be told, I think that voters at AfD have as much responsibility to investigate the notability of a subject as nominators do. Ravenswing 15:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "awards" section for lack of independent sources, which, presumably, removes it from this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep station in a large, upscale suburb home that is the home of a major university, and apparently replete with folks who want to be on TV, or to produce TV shows. So you get stories in the major regional daily , the Boston Globe with headlines like "Medford ready to launch `reality' energy savings series" about a TV3 program on energy savings in the home (2007). Article has quite a bit of text - some of it sourced - about local programs and controversies over local programs. In addition, I have added a section about a dispute over the station's management in 2006-11 that was intensely covered in the Boston Globe. The article is in need of improvement and tightening, in particular, the the "awards" appear to be so non-notable that I have removed that entire section - it had long been tagged for sourcing and the sourcing was all primary. However, coverage of station itself - some now on page and more available in a Proquest or other archive searches - does pass WP:NCORP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note very similar discussion about a public access station in another upscale college town Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton Community Television.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that relevant? I could also link to several discussions about public access stations that resulted in delete. WP:OSE???--Rusf10 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf, I hope you'll take another look at this one. Your deletion nomination had to do with the awards, I agree that they were over-hyped and removed them. You cited poor sourcing. However, there is a lot of coverage of the station and its programming over the decades, enough, I believe, to pass WP:SIGCOV. It is, of course, true that much of the INDEPTH coverage is in the password-protected regional daily, the Boston Globe, and that I use the password protected Proquest newspaper archive, but even a look at the headlines of the articles I added are, I think, persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. was dissolved in 2013. The new Medford community TV station may or may not be notable as a separate entity, but Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. no longer operates the station because it no longer exists. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Zoukis[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a writer and activist, written and sourced differently enough from the first attempt to not qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content but still not sourced well enough to actually get him over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Of all the footnotes here, he's the bylined author, not the written-about-by-other-people subject, of 20 of them; several more are his "our contributors" directories of content on the websites of publications he's been a contributor to (which are not notability-assisting sources); another bunch are Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself (which are not notability-assisting sources); several more represent non-notable literary awards sourced to their own websites (which is not support for notability; the extent to which a literary award counts as a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which media report the granting of that award as news); several more are to blogs rather than reliable media; some more are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things; and still more are primary source documents, such as the texts of court judgements. Out of 52 footnotes here, there's literally just one that counts for beans toward making a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article -- and that one, a review of one of his books in Kirkus Reviews, doesn't count for enough beans all by itself as an article's only bean-counting source. This referencing is still not even close to good enough. As well, the creator has a paid editing disclosure on their own userpage despite having virtually no prior edit history (not even deleted contributions) prior to creating this -- thus suggesting that this probably is the paid PR job. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sourcing does not pass general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Request help editing rather than deleting. Consideration was given towards notability and thought it was met. As well, user disclosure should not be a consideration. Content is unbiased and intended to be valuable. Disclosure as a marketing professional is a requirement. SuperW from Canrank 11:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperW from CanRank (talk • contribs) [reply]

Yes, and the reason it's a requirement is precisely because the conflict of interest works against you if the article falls short of our requirements. It's impossible for us to entirely prevent paid editing from happening at all, but it is technically against our rules — we have no mechanism to prevent any of our rules from getting broken before it happens, and the only recourse we have is to review the results of the rule breach after it's already been broken. So we require disclosure of paid editing, because such articles require a special level of heightened scrutiny to ensure that our rules aren't getting gamed by improper sourcing and public relations advertorialism — but that doesn't mean paid editing is an acceptable path to getting a topic into Wikipedia. (For starters, if a person was really, truly notable by our definition of notability, then he wouldn't have to pay anybody at all to get in here, because the article would already have gotten created organically.) Bearcat (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Other consideration - return page to DRAFT for continued work SuperW from CanRank talk

• Reason for creating the page was because Christopher Zoukis was found to be sourced on many pages when researching prison education, activists and incarceration in the US, including Incarceration in the United States, Michael Sabo, Prison Legal News, Arlington Heights, Ohio and List of law enforcement agencies in Ohio, and as an author, journalist and activist did not have a page of his own. SuperW from CanRank talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting cited as the author of sources on other pages about other topics is not, in and of itself, a notability freebie that entitles a person to have a standalone Wikipedia article about him in the absence of valid, notability-supporting reliable sources to support it. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Edits to the page have been completed to remove Zoukis sourced material and references. New sources added for awards and reviews. SuperW from CanRank talk 12:38, 5 April 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are still sources in the article in which Zoukis is the author and not the subject, and you still haven't added reliable sources that bolster notability at all: the awards are still referenced to their own self-published websites about themselves, not to any evidence of media coverage to establish that the awards are notable ones, and the book reviews are, apart from Kirkus, still from blogs rather than real media outlets. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second comment made by Nom. Article is so overstuffed with primary sources that I am tempted to just iVote: delete as PROMO. However, my initial search did turn up this 2016 Seattle Times Q & A]: “My Words Are Dangerous”: An Interview with Christopher Zoukis (valid as evidence of notability, but all facts sourced to this interview would have to be qualified with phrasing like, "According to Zoukis, he was first arrested for..." . If someone is willing to reduce the article to material that can be sourced to WP:RS, feel free to ping me to revisit and make a (time consuming,) thorough assessment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as PROMO for non-notable writer. Fails WP:BASIC. News and book searches generate lots of hits on books and articles Zoukis wrote, primarily in Huff Post. There are also a handful of articles in RS in which he is briefly quoted. What is lacking here is reliable, secondary material about Zoukis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, PROMO for non-notable writer. Might be able to have an article on the book he authored if there are enough reliable sources to back it up. Author is just mentioned in most of the sources, some sources are not reliable. Kees08 (Talk) 05:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Sweet[edit]

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

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

Non-notable local politician. Her only political office was as a BART board member; while BART is significant, its officials (except for general managers) tend to be town-level politicians that fly under the radar except at election season. The only news stories about her are trivial policy points, and for her failed candidacy for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. There's just not enough there to establish a real claim of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not passing the test of notability. Acnetj (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete local politician no where near passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and not otherwise notable under WP:GNG. Two previous AfDs were keeps, but the first one had only two voters, and the second one was a mistake, as local press coverage of a politician who is not otherwise notable performing their political role does not grant them automatic notability. SportingFlyer talk 21:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a member of a municipal transit board is not an WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to suggest that she would get over WP:GNG in lieu. A person does not clear GNG by getting quoted as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things — she gets over GNG by being substantively the subject of media coverage about her, but that's not what any of the sources here are showing: three of them are primary sources, and the other two are soundbites. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axmed Gaab[edit]

Axmed Gaab (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 wadi with no other information. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails V and GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator - fails GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton Courthouse Shooting[edit]

Brampton Courthouse Shooting (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)

Poorly sourced article about an obscure shooting incident that fails the ten-year test for enduring significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so it's not our role to create or maintain an article about every single thing that happens anywhere at all, but this demonstrates no enduring notability. There are just two sources here, one of which is reduplicated as a third footnote for no apparent reason: one is a press release from the SIU, who were directly involved in the matter and thus represent a primary source that verifies facts but does not assist in demonstrating notability, and the other is a single piece of purely local human interest coverage about the recovery of the cop involved. We do not need to maintain an article about every single incident in which somebody ever got shot, and this is not sourced anywhere near well enough to make this shooting a special case. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local / national level coverage mainly on on the news-cycle in March 2014 and then a bit more as bits and pieces came out of the investigation. Not mentions out there after 2014 in news orgs.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete sad instance of family-related violence; routine/minor news coverage that soon petered out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The only way I see of salvaging the article would be if someone could bring WP:RS into why the actions of a policeman shot in the abdomen and of another one shot at (but mercifully missed) require an internal affairs investigation. I guess Ontario cops should from now hand flowers and say "pretty please" while under armed attack! In the absence of such context of the societal impact of the bureaucratic trial the victim policemen underwent, the article as it stands does not seem salvageable. Therefore, alas!, Delete. XavierItzm (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I read IA investigates all shootings. They were criticized for the time it took - but they closed the case some six months after the shooting and praised the officers involved (which was the last spurt of coverage this got - in Oct 2014).Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Icewhiz is correct. At least in Ontario (I can't speak for elsewhere), the SIU always investigates every shooting that involves cops at all, to determine whether proper procedures were followed and whether disciplinary action is needed or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Amin Asadi[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY. NZFC^(talk) 21:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a so called "senior" career in C/B squads doesn't really strike me as establishing a player as being notable in any shape or form. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Survivors Book Series[edit]

The Survivors Book Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable self-published book. There is basically nothing for sources available that does not appear to itself also be self-published. GMG^talk 18:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this does seem to be a clear case of trying to use Wikipedia for publicity for a new series of self-published books. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, bit late now but its an advert for a self published book. Szzuk (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2018 (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. MBisanz ^talk 13:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Accidents[edit]

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

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

Article about a film, whose only stated claim of notability is that a "work in progress" excerpt screened last year at the local film festival of the city where the filmmaker works. This is a second-tier flm festival where a screening is not an automatic WP:NFILM pass in and of itself for a film that has yet to screen anywhere else, the way it would be at a top-tier festival like Cannes or TIFF or Sundance or Berlin, and the referencing here is nowhere near adequate to deem it as passing WP:GNG in lieu: the references are an online ticket seller, IMDb (which is not a reliable or notability-conferring source), and a small smattering of purely local coverage in the same city's local media -- including duplicated repetition of the same link to one radio station's "contact us" page instead of to any page that actually verifies that the station actually aired any content about the film. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it actually opens and screens wider than just Cinéfest alone, and/or it gets Canadian Screen Award nominations, but one screening at the filmmaker's own hometown film festival is not in and of itself enough to make a film notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a crowd source and personal finance film which was abandoned, it is only interesting because of the efforts to finish the cut despite there not being enough footage, it appears they decided to use behind the scenes footage. It was shown at a festival, and that is about it. Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication from either the references in the article or my own searching that this meets WP:NFILM, and in particular, fails WP:NFF. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2018 (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. Boldy closing this as a blatant hoax per G3. Not sure how this has lasted 6 years. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OT.W[edit]

OT.W (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 references. Not linked to by any other page. No proof this is a "thing" at all. Deroof (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Ingraham Angle#Boycott. Numerically this is a three-way split between keep, merge and delete. Arguments are all over the place but generally can't be clearly weighed by me in terms of policy compliance. To me, this indicates that we have consensus not to cover this topic as a separate article, but no consensus to delete it. Accordingly, a merger is the outcome best reflecting this discussion. What content is to be merged where to exactly can still be discussed. Sandstein 11:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott of The Ingraham Angle[edit]

Boycott of The Ingraham Angle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an event that happened in the news about news. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Article has no encyclopedic value on its own and basically amounts to a gossip piece - essentially meets criteria for WP:COATRACK. Could be merged with David Hogg and/or Laura Ingraham but those articles already have content on this minor event. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOT applies.--MONGO 18:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the relevant parts to the Hogg and Ingraham articles. Per WP:NOTNEWS, the boycott is relevant to the people involved but does not have sufficient enduring notability for its own article. -- irn (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I'm not totally convinced that this needs its own article, and I have my doubts regarding its enduring notability. But the problem of where to merge the article is significant. The article does a good job of putting all the relevant information together in one place without running into problems of WP:UNDUE, which would be hard on any of the other target articles. I also hadn't seen any reporting about the boycott beyond simply rehashing the drama of Ingraham vs Hogg, but MrX just added some to the article[3][4] and Tomwsulcer provided one below[5], and then there's Kyle Kashuv's failed copycat boycott, all of which speak to a more enduring notability. -- irn (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS, as per above. One too many articles are being created about the gun violence protests now. Werehilly (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The peak of this article is the "List of advertisers in boycott" section. It currently contains only one source. If we merge this anywhere, I believe that this stand-alone list would not be included on any other article. wumbolo ^^^ 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well sourced, with multiple points of view, and is not gossip, but a serious boycott of a nationwide television news show. Wasabi,the,one (talk)
  • I blocked this user for violating WP:SOCK here. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to The Ingraham Angle When there's a not-that-long, current controversy article that's about the same length as its parent, there's no need for two articles. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Hosts like her would have long list of such articles if every controversy (which they create whether intentionally or not) has its own article, and would have a separate article for the list (List of controversies involving Laura Ingraham). Acnetj (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are countless multi-sided sources on this topic that could much bolster the points, and make the article much larger. I will work to make it so. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • NOTE Less than a few hours old single-purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user is a WP:HAND of another user who voted here. Struck vote. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject has received significant coverage in major newspapers (Boston Globe, Seattle PI, The New York Times) and magazines (GQ, AdAge, Inc., Newsweek, Variety) across the US, and even internationally (Paris Match, The Guardian, Deutsche Welle, Sydney Morning Herald, Japan Times). It easily meets GNG and is an important part of historical impact of student activism following the watershed Stoneman Douglas shooting. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply since the subject is not routine reporting. The material is too long to be merged into another article without trimming essential information. Mysteriously, the OP recently voted strong keep, at an AfD for a far-less-notable subject.[6].- MrX 🖋 21:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: feel free to renominate the other article at AfD. You say that it is "far less notable" but it was speedily kept per WP:SNOW, notability was demonstrated at the discussion, notability is still demonstrated in the article, the subject appeared in dozens of RS just like this event and you keep saying that article is non-notable and it wasn't even a week since the AfD you started. wumbolo ^^^ 22:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this article was never nominated for speedy deletion, but the aforementioned article was. It seems fit that if an article that was declared non notable gets kept, this article (which was never nominated for speedy deletion for being non notable) should get kept as well. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • • NOTE Less than a few hours old single purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In addition to my point of view on this article, I also believe that a case can be made that this entire AfD was made from a political motive. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • NOTE Less than a few hours old single purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, and don't accuse someone of POV per WP:CIVIL. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 21:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 21:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 21:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Poorly-contrived nomination that reeks of "I do not like it". The subject is well-sourced and the coverage continues through today (Ingraham's 'Celebrity' Sentiment Declines By A Third Post-Hogg Tweet, “YOU DON’T ATTACK A KID”: INSIDE THE LAURA INGRAHAM NIGHTMARE AT FOX NEWS. In particular, those two sources show an extension of the subject matter, beyond the boycott what is notable now is the effect this is having on Ingraham's reputation, show, and possibly her career. This material far exceeds what could be covered in either Ingraham's or Hogg's articles without creating issues of undue coverage. This is a slamdunk WP:SPINOFF. TheValeyard (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge-Very little information is in this article which isn't already in the Hogg bio. It's important but I don't think it warrants a separate article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly multitudes of sources and the article can be expanded immensely. Merging the article will not allow for all of the relevant information that is out there to be in a supposed merger. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Tronald-Drumpf— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • NOTE Less than a few hours old single-purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hogg and Ingraham. This is borderline but I don't think it was an important enough boycott for its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Would someone please explain to Winkelvi that we do not strike through other editor's comments simply because they have been blocked?- MrX 🖋 01:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's common practice in Wikipedia to strike the comments of brand new single purpose accounts that have been indeffed for vandalism and/or trolling to have their comments and/or !votes striken per WP:DENY. This is also typical of sock accounts, and, considering the amount of Wikipedia savvy the SPA demonstrated, this is likely the case in this situation. !Votes from socks and/or accounts that have been indeffed for trolling with their !votes/comments should be stricken as ineligible to contribute. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect. The user was blocked for violating WP:UPOL. That is not grounds for striking their good faith comments.- MrX 🖋 01:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The indef is the result of a username complaint, however, the block notice reads: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior." The intent to not contribute positively as well as trolling behavior is evident in their comments here. WP:DENY applies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser as this all looks familiar.--MONGO 01:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a specific suspicion, feel free to do that, MONGO. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, I struck out the comments from the Tronald account, just now. I did so because although the original block was not for sockpuppetry, I subsequently blocked the original account and left a comment on the sock account, showing the sockpuppetry. I can reblock the Tronald account if you wish. The closer is welcome to take the Tronald comments (and vote) into account if they wish, ignoring my strike-throughs, though I believe this would be inappropriate given the abuse of WP:SOCK and as per WP:DENY (DENY, of course, being an essay rather than policy). --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep this is more than a "not news" flash-in-the-pan. It's significance is only beginning and it may be seen as a watershed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: "its significance is only beginning". Do you have a reference for that fact or did you look into a WP:CRYSTALBALL? wumbolo ^^^ 09:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Doctorow posted today about how more people were boycotting/dropping sponsorships. Coverage becomes more significant as the impact increases. The impact is significant and notable. Looks like I scried events in my crystal ball pretty clearly. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. This could be a textbook example for NOTNEWS. As an aside, I do wish people would quit adding every story about the Florida shooting to the school project. This boy has no more to do with schools than chalk does. John from Idegon (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTNEWS states "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." A boycott that is still being reported on ten days later, and that has been the subject of international news coverage would seem to qualify as a significant event. I know it's not a soccer match, but still pretty important from a historical standpoint. I'm not sure when the last time was that a 17 year old spawned a major boycott within hours of calling for one. My guess would be never.- MrX 🖋 19:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As of April 6th, there are 20 references (ie sourcing: not a problem). Does WP:NOTNEWS apply? Point 2 says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and this story has legs beyond one news cycle, not just a day or two, but weeks, with much back and forth (will Ingraham get fired? will advertisers go back to the show? -- these are ongoing developments). NOTNEWS discourages "routine news" such as announcements; the boycott isn't routine. NOTNEWS discourages original research; again, not the case. So NOTNEWS does not really apply here. It is not just a classic David and Goliath story, with the underdog (David Hogg) taking down the cyberbully (Laura Ingraham), but it has relevance for cyberbullying in general, for advertisers, as part of the culture war, and politics. Subject is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC) About the nominator's WP:COATRACK argument; first COATRACK is not official policy; second, the gist of the coatrack complaint is that when an article ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely, that is, the article becomes a "rack" upon which other topics are hung like coats, obscuring the rack -- if so, in this case, what is the "coat" and what is the "rack"? For me, the subject and content match -- the subject is the boycott of Ingraham's show, the content matches, QED no coatrack.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: from how I understand the nomination, the coats are the continuous backward-forward Twitter exchanges between Hogg/Ingraham/Fox News. Regarding your points, we should talk about Ingraham's actions on her article (WP:POVFORK) and "as part of the culture war" is not an excuse (WP:CRYSTALBALL). Now let's get to the advertisers. If we remove all the coats from this article, what is left? That's right, advertisers. The point of this article is the "List of advertisers in boycott" section. So judge the notability of the boycott on that section, and not on the fight between Hogg and Ingraham/Fox on Twitter. wumbolo ^^^ 14:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: You're saying this article is really about the advertisers? It's really about the boycott, specifically the effort to pressure advertisers to drop Ingraham's show; the content all focuses on this theme, including the back-and-forth exchanges (which I don't see as 'coats'). Like I said, WP:COATRACK isn't really policy regardless. That said, the argument about WP:POVFORK is a stronger argument for deletion, that is, is the subject matter of this article really about Laura Ingraham or her show The Ingraham Angle, and this article a fork to try to avoid achieving consensus on either? And here's where I see this boycott as a rather new and notable phenomenon, bigger and different from simply Ingraham or her show. It's the real power of social media and moral force to bring about substantive change in the marketplace of ideas. A test of this: could anybody have predicted, in advance, after what Ingraham said, that a student-turned-activist would bring down a cyberbullying talk show host? With a tweet? This is new stuff, different from any standard boycott.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Determining enduring notability in the moment is an inherently subjective and speculative exercise. When I consider the enduring notability of an event, I imagine how it will be viewed in the future (like the ten year test). Yes, this has legs beyond one news cycle, but I don't think that's enough. (But, again, that's pretty subjective.)

The other relevant guideline here is WP:NEVENT. I think it falls into the “may or may not be notable” category, and then to the subpoints, I’d say there is at best a weak argument that it meets all of the coverage criteria, but it meets neither of the event criteria. Yet. That could change if Ingraham loses the show or if this turns into a template used by others (like Kyle Kashuv's attempted copycat boycott of Eichenwald), but we're just not there yet.

Regarding its relevance for cyberbullying, advertising, culture wars, and politics, that could be a compelling argument, but I don't see it being discussed that way in the sources. If you have sources that attest to its relevance in that regard, I’d invite you to post them here. -- irn (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ten year test is not an official guideline. The WP:NEVENT is an official guideline, but it says The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded and I think this clearly applies in this case: the boycott is significant, interesting, unusual and has attracted sufficient attention. If you need more sources talking about the relevance of the boycott, check out GQ and Morning Joe and Hollywood Life and Daily Kos and many others. Like, even Republican strategist is weighing in why the boycott has been successful, that is, there are ramifications for talk show standards, political discourse, and the power of media (ie Twitter versus Fox is akin to David versus Goliath). It's a qualitatively new type of boycott, noteworthy. Overall, the strongest of the delete arguments I think is the POVFORK one, and that's open to interpretation, but my sense is the article should still stay for reasons mentioned above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per John from Idegon. Flash in the pan. NOTNEWS. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Admins, please note that the ip6 user above has made few edits and fits every definition of what this project terns a single purpose account. The person is insistent on obscuring this fact, so I am highlighting this with a proper response rather than a tag, thus no more hiding. TheValeyard (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Ingraham Angle. Useless fork. — JFG ^talk 14:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: do you think the list of advertisers in boycott wouldn't create WP:UNDUE weight upon that article after the merge? wumbolo ^^^ 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The list should be trimmed anyway, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. We should also take care not be perceived as advocating for or against the boycott, per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, and I feel that naming all participants accomplishes exactly that. Noting a few of the most notable brands in the prose should be well enough. — JFG ^talk 14:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here, all we decide is whether to keep, delete, merge or redirect. If the latter two, where. What gets merged is a topic for the target's talk page, not a factor in whether we merge it. Frankly, since there isn't any consensus on where to merge, if you don't want the article to stay, a delete !vote is all that makes sense. John from Idegon (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As other editors also invoked WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I have now removed the full list of advertisers, mentioned some of them in the prose, and kept a citation to the full list.[7] I still !vote to merge. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and other delete comments (single event, not news, etc) HunterM267 ^talk 15:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• admin note I guess it's not necessary to highlight the edit of the 2A02 anon with a "SPA" note. Hopefully, this will not proceed to become an unseemly edit war. Let's just leave that alone. Spirited debate is great. Edit warring not so much.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*I think it is quite necessary, given their insistence on obscuring their edit history. But they can have their Pyrrhic victory over the tag, sure, I'll just leave a response to their "vote" in its place. Problem solved. TheValeyard (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Ingraham Angle article with mentions in the articles of David Hogg and Laura Ingraham. Wikipedia is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE but this has received substantial coverage with regards to the three articles mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge most of the content to The Ingraham Angle; the boycott may very well be the most significant thing that happened to this program, but it can still all be covered in the same article. When merging, I would recommend dropping the full list of advertisers, apart from a few most notable companies, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The rest of the content is good and can be merged into the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination; content fork and Wikipedia is not a newspaper; most of this is already covered in other noted articles. Kierzek (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is well referenced with 23 solid sources and the significant coverage in those reliable sources shows that this boycott is notable. Historians studying the tumultuous events of 2018 will benefit from this carefully curated article about this effective boycott, since journalism is "the first rough draft of history". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Successful is what way, Cullen328? Advertisers left her show. So what? The show still exists, she still has advertisers, and she will get more. The only thing successful in this scenario is Laura Ingraham. Having one of the top rated cable shows since it premiered seems pretty successful to me. As far as it being an historical event...it's a blip that went away the day after it happened. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Successful (I actually wrote "effective") in that 15 national advertisers cancelled, Winkelvi. Neither your opinion of the boycott nor mine changes the indisputable fact that it has received significant coverage in a large number of prominent reliable independent sources, and is therefore notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" for a couple of days. And certainly not something that's going to go down in the annals of history. Hogg's desire to get advertisers to leave Ingraham's show may have been momentarily successful, but advertisers are a dime a dozen in television. It's not as if she has no advertisers now and won't be able to fill all fifteen slots by the time she's back on the air next week. The final result is not what I call successful. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:XY, WP:RAPID, WP:DEADLINE. Renominate in a week. wumbolo ^^^ 11:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: The subject has received sustained news coverage for the past 15^* days, with no signs of abating any time soon. Also, the article has been visited by more than 6000 readers.- MrX 🖋 18:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC), ^*updated: 13:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) , 11:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC), 10:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC), 11:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC), 11:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS still very much applies. And it hasn't received sustained significant news coverage for the last ten days. That died down after day three. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incorrect and easily-debunked assertion. Bill Maher Comes to Laura Ingraham’s Defense Amid Ad Boycott: ‘Is That American?’, dated April 6 2018. You are also reminded, for a 2nd time, to stop hiding my relevant and policy-based critiques of your arguments above. TheValeyard (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheValeyard: Mediaite isn't really a RS, it's a blog website. wumbolo ^^^ 19:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, let's not be picky here. It's also in Newsweek. I only picked the 2nd one down, Mediate, because Newsweek's caption was in all-caps and I didn't want to post that and look yelly. TheValeyard (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No it doesn't. Yes it does. (In that order). There was coverage in multiple sources just a fews hours ago. Please don't base your arguments on false claims.- MrX 🖋 19:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The significant, continuous news coverage occurred a week ago and was over with as of Monday, April 2, 2018. See here Yahoo news regurgitating the same thing that was said a week ago isn't significant and it isn't continuous. Bill Maher mentioning Ingraham and the boycott isn't significant, continuous coverage, either. It's a mention. WP:NOTNEWS still very much applies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search reveals that to be false.- MrX 🖋 19:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A web search was included in my previous comments. You are free to claim it's untrue, and free to believe it, but doing so doesn't make the reality change or go away. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know anyone used yahoo anymore. :) But seriously, several sources have noted Maher's defense of Ingraham, you can't just handwave that away. It happened yesterday, and shows the story is still ongoing. Multiple sources also note that the "vacation" is almost up, such as the AP story carried by Time] and ABC. That is from today, and shows the story is still ongoing. TheValeyard (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: you can stop updating how many pageviews this article gets as it doesn't affect whether it should be kept. wumbolo ^^^ 12:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion Wumbolo, but I decline. Page views are a measure of reader interest, and an important indication of whether a subject is notable.- MrX 🖋 12:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: could this more explicitly prove you wrong? Not a policy/guideline but still... WP:POPULARPAGE... wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's an essay. It represents the view of one editor, who added it without discussion. Many editors disagree with parts of that essay, including the counterintuitive assertions about page view stats.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not news about news It's analysis of advertising. It's in the news, but so are many things. The various articles, shows and opinion pieces focused on one thing are what makes coverage "significant". That said, I don't care whether we keep or delete it. Pick one for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per clear consensus and reasons already stated (disregarding socks). Secondary sense (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)— Secondary sense (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Was not convinced last week, but this story has shown to have legs over the weekend with continuing coverage. There's a particular uptick today as her show, supposedly, is returning tonight. ValarianB (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ValarianB: please ignore this uptick as it is a lot of speculation and doesn't affect notability much. Let's see how it goes. Even then, we should wait a bit to see if today's episode would be notable. wumbolo ^^^ 12:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wumblo, don't ping me with suggestions to "ignore" something, it's belittling and unwanted. Speculative or not, when a dozen-ish reliable sources are all on the "she's back tonight!" train, that is notable, and an example of sustained coverage. ValarianB (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ValarianB, the story doesn't have legs, it gained a vestigial pinky toe. Repeated stories about Ingraham returning to the air tonight is not continuing coverage, it's regurgitation of something that's nothing more than a big, "Well, duh!". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating a canard doesn't make it true, Winklevi. Read WP:BLUDGEON when you have a moment. ValarianB (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well-acquainted with WP:BLUDGEON. (1) It's an essay, not policy. Learn the difference. (2) In that essay, there's nothing that states editors should not call out bullshit, misrepresentations, and hyperbole regarding sources. Accurate sourcing is at the heart of Wikipedia content contribution -- if editors start claiming sources are verifying something they aren't, it needs to be pointed out. (3) None of my comments in this AfD equate bludgeoning. I suggest you read WP:FOC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a essay that you'd do well to understand. I'm sorry that the continued, sustained coverage in the cited sources is disrupting your fraudulent talking points, but that's your problem to deal with, not mine. Allstate Quietly Drops Laura Ingraham in Internal Memo to Employees (April 10, 2018). Amid ad boycott, Laura Ingraham says she won't be silenced by 'the left' (April 10, 2018). ValarianB (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrap is a Hollywood blog/gossip site - in other words, it's an unreliable source and cannot be used for referencing. Why would you try to cite it here? CNN Money is, of course, a reliable source, however, their mention is in regard to Ingraham's show last night. In which she didn't once mention David Hogg or the "boycott". She was talking about free speech and efforts to silence Conservative voices. Which everyone should have a problem with, but still has nothing to do with the article up for deletion here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrap is already being used as a source in the article, my dear uninformed one, as a source for Allstate's withdrawal. There's nothing uncontroversial about that fact, it isn't salacious gossip, it is just reporting their withdrawal, SF Gate has picked up their story as well. Your efforts to bludgeon this discussion and undermine the topic are transparent, and have not done a thing to gainsay the work editors like Mir. X and others have put into the article. ValarianB (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to the presence of a wholly unreliable source in an article that falls under BLP guidelines. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrap is indeed a reliable news source, as indicated by being cited by other reliable news sources. See WP:USEBYOTHERS and WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 149#The Wrap (thewrap.com).- MrX 🖋 16:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winklevi, thanks for making a pointy, disruptive edit. Glad to see that it has already been reversed. ValarianB (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wrap is a Hollywood blog site, their writers are referred to as "Hollybloggers" Definitely not a reliable source. My removal of The Wrap as a reference was not pointy, and it was most certainly appropriate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may take that point up with the reliable source board. Or take it up with USA Today, unquestionably a reliable source, that cited The Wrap in its own news article. Edit-warring though, will lead to a bad end. ValarianB (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ValarianB: please read WP:BURDEN - the burden is on the person who wants to include material, not the other way around. wumbolo ^^^ 18:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumblo:, you never followed up on your previous response, so forgive me if I do not place much faith in your argument this time, either. The material is cited to a source that has passed muster on the RSN already, thus the edit-warrior above owns the burden as to why the source should not be used in this situation. All it is a citation for is Allstate dropping its advertising on Ingraham's show. Not a controversial claim, not a spectacular claim or BLP-related issue; it's just a fact. A fact that USA Today has noted as well. ValarianB (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Notable enough for a mention under a "controversies" section, but not it's own article. See Sean_Hannity#Roy_Moore_and_advertiser_boycott and Jimmy_Kimmel_Live!#Mocking_the_First_Lady for examples of how Wikipedia has handled similar controversies/boycotts. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a separate, necessary sidebar requiring explanation beyond the articles of the two named individuals involved making merging inappropriate. The fact that it even had a temporary change in the programming means this was an effective boycott, obviously the long term effects to be determined. Google is loaded with Reliable sources reporting on the boycott. Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, Ingraham has taken a week off from her radio show around spring break and/or Easter for years, now that she has a prime time television program, her spring time off schedule is still part of her annual routine. There was no "programming change". She's a devout Catholic, and took time off for one of the holiest seasons in Catholicism. That it happened right after Hogg's call for a "boycott" is merely coincidence. She has three children, is a single parent, and did what she always does this time of year: vacation with her children. You're reading something into nothing. Which is WP:SYNTH and unverifiable. Are you sure you want to base your !vote on something that couldn't go into the article because it's against policy to do so? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi there are many sources describing the whole vacation after the media brouhaha as dubious and questionable such as this one. It's not WP:SYNTH. Whether the vacation was pre-planned or not, it sure worked to get Ingraham out of the spotlight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're joking, but fear you aren't, Tomwsulcer. The Wrap is not a reliable source (why, in God's name, are you even quoting it?) - it's a blog site. The contributors there are referred to "Hollybloggers". Beyond that, if any reliable source claims her vacation was "dubious", then they should turn in their press credentials. Why? Because stating such is not based on anything other than assumption, supposition, and facts not in evidence. In other words: it's POV gossip. Here is some real evidence for you: Did she take a vacation from her radio show last week? Yep, she did. As she stated on Good Friday, her vacation was a pre-planned, week-long absence. She's been doing it for years in regard to her radio show - now she has a primetime cable news show, so she took a vacation from that, too. Big, freaking, deal. If it was all a FOX News plot to get her "out of the spotlight" from the television program, she wouldn't have disappeared suddenly from her radio show, either (the radio show is not FOX affiliated). "Dubious"? Ugh. If you're going to be a Wikipedia editor who is supposed to be neutral in your contributions, please act like one when it comes to how you view/understand sourcing and in how you !vote. That's the responsible thing to do. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, pre-planned just like O'Reilly's was planned, right? Comparisons are being drawn by sources between the two. Your own bias is showing as well, Wink, your contributions to this discussion have been decidedly right-wing. TheValeyard (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions to this discussion have been nothing less than in favor of verifiable content, accuracy, NPOV, encyclopedia-worthy articles and content. For your information (not that it's anyone's business in this internet environment among strangers), but I'm not "right-wing". I'm a fan of what's right and what's appropriate content-wise -- nothing more, nothing less. Kindly keep your misconceptions and assumptions about my political views out of any discussions we may have from now on. You also might want to read WP:FOC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with Valeyard; can we kindly keep assumptions out?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While Ingraham's quickly announced vacation does match the pattern when Bill O'Reilly fell in disfavor, I was actually referring to the advertiser pullout by some 25 notable companies (content that was inadvertently removed here. That a suggestion in a Tweet from a teenager can cause that tide of action shows the clear notability of this subject. If I were to tweet out a proposed boycott of someone or something I dislike, well, first I would need to get a Twitter account, but still, nobody would care and nothing would happen. Trackinfo (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per NOTNEWS. Merge into Hogg and Ingraham articles. CookieMonster755✉ 16:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with this and other merge suggestions is that you're calling for content to be duplicated into separate articles. The reader wishes to view this subject matter, do they go to Hogg's bio, or Ingraham's? Assuming for a moment that "merge" is the consensus close of this discussion, will the once-identical content stray over time as different editors have an interest in the 2 articles? IMO the fact that there's two viable entities involved in this conflict speaks to the necessity of a standalone article. A standalone would also eliminate the concern of overburdening either biography with a controversy, i.e. WP:UNDUE. ValarianB (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep mainly because this article is longer and better referenced than the one about The Ingraham Angle, merging it would either give more weight to the boycott than to the show itself, or would result in losing well written and referenced data. --GRuban (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Ingraham Angle article; UNDUE problems can be reduced by improving the rest of that article's text and/or reducing the bloat and excesses of the merged text. --Jayron32 00:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Per so many of the comments above. Notnews, recentism and really it can just be merged into the Ingraham and Hogg articles. Springee (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the boycott of a US TV show is being discussed in Canadian news for pete sake. The page now has 26 good references. Arguably the boycott is more notable than the show based on the amount of RS discussing it. It's not a one day event. It's not just routine news. It's not a failure because the program's advertising dropped a lot. It's also not ok for the OP to bludgeon every editor that opposes deleting page - and if the OP replies to me too I'll remove their post. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: good luck, read WP:TPO. wumbolo ^^^ 17:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: you do appear to be BLUDGEONing. You've made your position quite clear, now please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Winkelvi's bludgeon cracked my crystal ball!--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm not bludgeoning if MrX and the sock accounts and sockmaster Valarian aren't. Call them out for the same thing, and I might take your comment seriously, BMK. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asked not to reply to me - fail. Asked not to bludgen - fail. Mocking BMK - fail again. Legacypac (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: Accusing someone of being a "sockmaster" without presenting evidence is a violation of WP:Casting aspersions. This is a warning: if you do it again, it goes right to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? ValarianB was blocked for being a sockmaster - his sock was TheValeyard. I'm not casting aspersions against anyone, it's an SPI fact. Look into it. Or go to AN/I and look silly. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, if anyone else is BLUDGEONing, stop. And Winkelvi, a word to the wise: if you don't want to get ticketed for speeding more then the average person, don't drive a red car. If you don't want to stand out in a crowd of Wikipedians, make your sig match everyone else's. As long as you have a distinctive sig, it's going to be easier to see your activities on a crowded page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have I said anything more to anyone about anything related to this AfD or their !vote since bludgeoning was brought up? No, I have not. I'm not in the least bit interested in fighting with you, BMK. Please just drop it, okay? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didnot know that about ValerianB, so I apologize for that remark, and I'm striking it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ::Delete This is getting ridiculous. This can easily be covered in existing articles and is an unnecessary fork. Also delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. AusLondonder (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge - This should be maybe a paragraph and section in The Ingraham Angle, not a whole article. PackMecEng (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge - Sourced, notable, merge would be appropriate as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't seem to be a short news cycle story: did not IBM and Red Lobster just pull out? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changed from "merge"): at this point, it could be argued that the boycott is more notable than the program itself, and the latter's article should be merged here. Or they continue to exist separately. This can be decided on respective article's Talk pages. Meanwhile, more coverage: Allstate drops Ingraham Angle. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this "breaking news story." In a month or two this will be all but forgotten. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. For similar treatment Sean_Hannity#Roy_Moore_and_advertiser_boycott. – Lionel^(talk) 07:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you actually comparing this to the boycott that inspired Hannity superfans to smash their own coffee makers? The Ingraham boycott has resulted in a loss of 24 advertisers. Her #4 show now has half the commercial airtime that it did two weeks ago. The news coverage is not "breaking"; it has been continuous for 15 days, and has reached the far corners of the earth. This easily qualifies as a "significant current event"—the type of subject for which we should have independent articles per WP:NOTNEWS, not to mention WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE.- MrX 🖋 11:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Mr.X -- it's a qualitatively different type of boycott.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2028 will this article seem like a good idea? No. "Just wait and see. Remember, there is no deadline..." WP:10YT – Lionel^(talk) 00:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 08:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to a summarized version at The Ingraham Angle. Rampant WP:RECENTISM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arts Club of Washington. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marfield Prize[edit]

Marfield Prize (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 few hits on this minor award are all either press releases or trivial mentions. Does not have enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment perhaps you missed this and this? Queen-washington (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - nope, saw them both. The second is simply a press release put out by the organization. And the first is little better. Artnet doesn't publish their editorial guidelines, so whether or not they are a reliable source is also debatable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Prize itself has not attracted articles in the national mass media. That's not surprising: the Prize addresses a specialized community of readers of art criticism and history. There are numerous articles noting it in specialized magazines such as Artforum, Scene4, and pif Magazine. The prize itself is sufficiently respected that it is very widely noted in the references to the authors and works that have received it, including the national media (Washington Post, Huffington Post, Publishers Weekly), respected presses (Princeton), university lectures, etc.. There are 2000 such hits on Google to sort through. My opinion is that the notability of the Marfield Prize is more than adequate for inclusion in Wikipedia. With that said, the present article is still a list, not an article, and doesn't begin to address the notability of its subject. So I think a reasonable path here is to tag the article to indicate that the notability of the subject is not established. It was probably unwise for the list to be broken out of the Arts Club article, where it was sitting happily for some time. However, deletion of the article on the grounds that its subject is not notable is also (in my opinion) unwise. Easchiff (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is an unwise spin out from Arts Club of Washington, the information is already there in history, so there is nothing to merge. Szzuk (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge it back. Szzuk (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Arts Club of Washington, which presently lacks this content in the article itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Happy if it's merged back, and [[Marfield Prize]] returns to being a redirect. Easchiff (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Flynn[edit]

Dean Flynn (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)

Apparently it does not satisfy WP: PORNBIO. Just only one not remarkable prize. Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete totally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 7 April 2018 (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. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Velgarth[edit]

Velgarth (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)

A very long article sourced entirely from the content of the books it references. In many cases the wiki-links in the article are themselves recursive. This is WP:OR at its best or worst. There are already articles about the individual books and the author and this is just a (very extended) synthesis derived from the content of those books. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support: It is certainly discouraging that the article's been tagged since 2010 and very little seems to have changed to satisfy concerns about the subject as being notable in its own right. I'm forced to agree with the nominator that it presently appears better suited to a wikia than to its own article here. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mercedes Lackey. Plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:FANCRUFT belongs to Wikia Fandom. Acnetj (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vaniya Nair/Vaniya chettiar[edit]

Vaniya Nair/Vaniya chettiar (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 WP:Original research on either Nair, Vaniya Chettiar, or the merged Nair subcastes, all of which have a long and problematic history of unsourced WP:OR on subcastes. Article creator contested proposed deletion (and removed all the maintenance templates) with the edit summary "fixed typo". The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The creator included evidence for Vaniya nair caste in malabar in reference section,Vaniya nair is mentioned in "Letters From Malabar : Jacob Canter Visscher" as one of the caste engaged in traditional works in malabar region.A simple google search of word' vaniya nair' gave results of matrimonial sites exclussively dedicated to this specific caste- http://vaniyamarriagebureau.com/about.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.6.90 (talk • contribs) — 88.201.6.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could you log back in please, before posting here? The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi sir, I have now included various sources as reference , Please pardon my mistake of deleting the proposal of deletion and maintaince templates as I'm not very much familiar with wikipedia usage🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satvikgeetha (talk • contribs)

Hello mighty glen,

I have added several referances now,Are those enough for the article to not to get deleted? Or should i add more?

Cheers Satvikgeetha (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Poorly-sourced article with no indication of notability. Vaniya Chettiar already exists, and Google Books/News throw up zero results for "Vaniya Nair". Google Scholar has [8] - an unpublished thesis with trivial mentions. The sources cited in the article are not adequate either. [9] - Trivial mention of "Vaniya Nair" - not enough to establish notability; the source doesn't mention that it's a "sub-caste". [10] - Mentions the term "Vaniya Chettiar", on which an article already exists; also a weebly page is not a reliable source. The creator states that [11] mentions the term, but I couldn't find it -- added a 'page number needed' tag. The following sources don't mention the terms "Vaniya Nair" and "Vaniya Chettiar": [12][13][14][15][16] (and most of these don't pass WP:RS guidelines). utcursch | talk 00:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what ^^ utcursch ^^ says. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2018 (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. MBisanz ^talk 13:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Shelatkar[edit]

Rohit Shelatkar (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)

Personally I think this is completely bureaucratic to go through this again so soon when nothing has changed: the subject is still not notable and fails WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. WP:G4 is only for "sufficiently identical copies" and it "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The previous version (deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit Shelatkar) made no mention of a film career as this one does, which is why I declined The G4 nomination. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete typical paid editing effort with ref padding (multiple churnalism refs from same press release, SPS, puff pieces, passing mentions, etc). Fails BIO. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 6 April 2018 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamal K Mishra[edit]

Shyamal K Mishra (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 yet notable per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO. So far he's been assistant director or co-director of a few low-notability films, and WP:Notability is not inherited. He's the director of a new, as-yet unreleased film of unknown notability. For his work to date, I don't see any significant coverage online in WP:RS. Photo in article was uploaded by article creator as "own work", suggesting a conflict of interest. At best, WP:TOOSOON. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Concur with The Mighty Glen, nothing in article to support meeting notability at this point, nothing in a google search to suggest meeting notability. Add in the fairly obvious COI, and this should be deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete independent dedicated coverage not found in third party reliable sources... work done is also mostly non notable... article text is written like personal blog -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear administrators and editor

Shyamal K Mishra Wikipedia's article is not person blog because Shyamal K Mishra have already many External links and websites .He is notable person of indian film director .His movie Krina (film) will release soon and Shyamal K Mishra article page have any issues i am requesting u that pls fix it and remove from Afd list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi Kumar Maurya (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:02, 7 April 2018 (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros Chapsiadis[edit]

Alexandros Chapsiadis (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)

Absolutely no case for notability under WP:PROF ! Mathchecker (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a random scholar, not even a hint for notability in the article Wikitigresito (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Entirely "unnotable" as scientist, or academic. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The grand total of a single publication, with no citations. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Publication and citation record far short of WP:PROF#C1, with no other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - User:David Eppstein considered CSD in 2013, but decided to conservatively tag the article for problems in 2013.[17] I don't find any sources not currently in the article, and agree the article is not encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:34, 10 April 2018 (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 moved to Draft:Bekir Brunčević. MT Train^Talk 07:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bekir Brunčević[edit]

Bekir Brunčević (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, Serbian-language BLP of seemingly non-notable football player. Article has been deleted multiple times of the Serbian Wikipedia. PROD and Not English tags removed by article creator. Madg2011 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article is in a foreign language, and should not, therefore, be in the English Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had tagged it as needing translation from Serbian but the tag was removed by the article creator (along with a BLP PROD tag). Taking it to AfD seemed like the best way of dealing with it. Madg2011 (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2018 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aneta Bogdan[edit]

Aneta Bogdan (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)

By all appearances, this is a person with an interesting career like millions of others, but hardly worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Let's go through the sources.

• For starters, This, this, this, this, this and this don't mention the subject at all

• • The reason why most of these references don't mention the subject is because they reference instead to Bogdan's company, through which she carried out her work. The Chartered Marketer reference is a database of people who hold that title, you need to search for the subject's name. And the reference about Vodafone's acquisition of Connex supports that exact statement. Please note that one reference is a video from the archive of the Romanian National Television, from the cultural TV show 'Garantat 100%', where Bogdan was invited in 2011. Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then, what are her accomplishments? She:

• Represented her company at a conference and presented a new logo -- i.e., she did her (fairly routine) job
  • The accomplishment here is more about the creation of the first ever visual identity for the Romanian National Football Team (I deemed it notable as a historic landmark, relevant for the sports field but also the general public, and I noticed that the logo is a detailed topic on the wiki pages of other national football teams). Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Became the first Romanian Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (how's that for a notability claim?) Onethreefour134
  • The notability is she was the first Romanian to receive this rare title Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Gave a TED Talk (like over 100 thousand others)
  • I chose TED Talks as a reliable and verifiable reference to illustrate and support the statement. Please let me know if a more suitable reference is necessary. Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Launched a book (no word on reviews or impact of said book)
  • Thank for pointing this out, I added more information on book and will look for reviews Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Got the book mentioned by a PR agency
  • Please note that AdHugger is not a PR agency (http://www.adhugger.net/about/). Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Had her company included in a branding hall of fame, together with many others
  • In brand & design industry this is a prestigious achievement, as this is a top 20 brand & design companies globally, many of which are well known and have Wiki pages (Pentagram, Brand Union, Interbrand etc.). Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So again, I suppose the subject is fairly successful at what she does, but nothing here really stands out, and besides, such coverage as exists is mainly in the form of passing mentions. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete: I tried to find the 2018 English translation of her book, but it's not in WorldCat, Copac or Amazon. A publisher and an ISBN would help. If that had a couple of reviews in WP:RS we'd be starting to get some notability. As it stands ... nothing much here, sadly. PamD 08:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing this out, I have added the ISBN codes to both books (RO and EN) and will check for reviews. Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here is an example of in-depth discussion about Aneta (as a person) which I added to the article. [18] She has also been called the most powerful woman in Romania [19] and one of the 100 most powerful women in the world[20] by Business Magazine. Combined with the sources that were already there, I think that's enough to pass WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. I think being called the most powerful woman in Romania is evidence for notability, too. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a technical comment: "cele mai puternice femei din România" means "the most powerful women in Romania". That article was run by a business magazine profiling the country's 200 most powerful businesswomen, excluding other domains were women are powerful, such as politics or entertainment.
  • Now, perhaps the subject is a "powerful woman". But nobody has called her "the most powerful woman in Romania", because that would be slightly absurd. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made amends to your statement, Lonehexagon, the reference is about including the subject in top 100 most powerful business women in 2012, by local news source Business Magazin Onethreefour134 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like this fails WP:GNG. The supposed notability of the enterprise doesn't quite translate to her, so most of the sources not mentioning her are chaff -- supposing they are relevant, they could be used in reference to the corporate entity, if anyone's really suggesting it's notable. The rest of the sources appear to be one-time mentions, and some are just puff-pieces in publications with no particular standing; others, such as FRF links, are not independent of the subject (the entity she rebranded reported on being rebranded). Her most solid claim to personal fame is a one-time inclusion as one of the 200 (not top ten or anything like that) most powerful (whatever that means) women in business for a rather small country (ell no, not "the world", at least read the sources you're using!) with an even smaller market by the editors of a magazine that is itself of dubious journalistic credentials (what's to say Business Magazin is a WP:RS?). Revista Tango is a gossip and lifestyle magazine, not some journalistic powerhouse; its coverage and especially its interviews are not necessarily proof of notability. As for AdHugger: that's not even PR, it a creator of spam. Dahn (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, @Onethreefour134: Please stop cutting into other people's comments. If you have to reply to every comment, do so in one paragraph, and outside the body of text you're replying to. Dahn (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in here that adequately addresses WP:BIO criteria.

• Keep I believe the subject meets the WP:NG criteria. She has written a best seller book in Romania. I found citations of it in academic publications as well as inclusion in the bibliography of some academic environments, and added them to the article's references. The book was recently launched in its international (English) edition. She is notable in her field of work and considered a pioneer of the branding discipline in Romania. This is supported by the fact that in the past 15 years she has been the advisor to either the creation or rebranding of a quarter of the 50 most valuable Romanian brands (Brand Finance report 2017). And through her company, she has advised on the development of more than 100 new brands (these were included in dedicated book in 2010). Since then, a more recent reference mentions over 200 brands). She is the founder of the biggest brand and design company in Romania, which can also be considered notable given the international design awards it has received and the inclusion in the top 25 most reputable design companies world wide (by industry authority Rebrand). Also, the article follows the WP:RS criteria. The subject is significantly covered in the media, from TV shows to interviews and opinion pieces, in reliable and verifiable sources (Romanian National Television, established news organisations in Romania: Wall Street, Forbes, Jurnalul, Adevarul, Digi24, Business Review etc.). I have looked for replacements of some of the previously challenged Romanian references. But I would advise some precaution and double-checking before dismissing some of the international references, some are established in the industry of the subject (i.e. Underconsideration is a long time running opinion platform by designer Armin Vit, you can find him and the website referenced in many other wiki pages about creative professionals, i.e. Wally Ollins). Onethreefour134 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2018 (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. Again. A merge may be reasonable, but one of the talkpages is the place for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alien language[edit]

Alien language (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)

Except for the single item in the Inherent difficulties section, this is redundant with the info in article Alien language in science fiction. Suggest merge. RobP (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Merger is different from deletion. See WP:ATD-M. @Rp2006, would you like to withdraw this deletion discussion and suggest the merge on the article's talk page? Cnilep (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepWhile no "alien languages" exist that we know of, it is apperently a theoretical topic which has gotten enough academic attention... there are sufficient sources to warrant this as it's own article and a merger with alien languages in sci-fi wouldn't work, this has nothing to do with that topic. Ps there was a strong concensus to keep the last two AFD's what has changed about the article or wiki policies to look at this again?Sethie (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: So it is acceptable to just keep an article that is nearly as old as Wikipedia itself and still has not been updated to include any of the supposedly notable sources available? Indefinitely? Again, this article mostly concerns just the sci-fi aspect of the topic - which already has its own article. Why is that acceptable? I have deleted anything not applicable to the stated subject of this article now. I think this highlights how thin it actually is. RobP (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Sethie. 92.2.70.144 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Sethie. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The editor who nominated this article for deletion has removed some of the strongest sourced material, which emphasize the academic and scholarly angle of this topc, with what seems to me inaccurate and misleading edit summary.... strongly request the admin who closes the AFD, to look at it's state before these edits. Sethie (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) went ahead and fixed this issue.Sethie (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated directly above, "I have deleted anything not applicable to the stated subject of this article now. I think this highlights how thin it actually is. "What I deleted was all the SciFi material which belongs in the other article, Alien language in science fiction. So, Sethie, you may have just made my point. Indead - that was "some of the strongest sourced material" here. Not much left other than the SciFi angle. RobP (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, valid subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Niche insurance. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alien abduction insurance[edit]

Alien abduction insurance (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)

Seems extremely week to have its own article. Suggest adding info to main Alien abduction article if appropriate. RobP (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Other potential merge targets could be niche insurance or kidnap and ransom insurance. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to niche insurance per all the positive response below. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I like the idea above. There are also categories here that we may want to be careful of. IF I recall an insurance company can insure almost ANYTHING as long as the policy holder is willing to pay a premium. There are insurance policies against attacks from Zombies, the Loch Ness Monster, Chemo treatments for your pet which includes goldfish (cancer recovery for your goldfish, who knew?), Alien Abduction, which can go as high as 10 million for abduction and property damage etc etc. Perhaps a no limits section on what can be insured? Former super model Cheryl Tiegs had at one point insured her legs at Lloyds of London for a few million. I say hell yes, put it all in there. Certainly I MUST KNOW these things, dont you? I also found this link: https://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/world-s-biggest-insurer-takes-on-all-risks.aspx hmmm. Unicorn attacks, big foot attacks,hauntings etc etc Coal town guy (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I would say merging with Niche Insurance as suggested by The Mighty Glen is the most logical target, unless we have another "odd insurance" article somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Niche Insurance. Sourcing is perhaps a bit thin for its own article (most sources are passing mentions). Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge even though niche insurance is a stub also. OMG David Lee Roth has penis insurance? The things I learn on Wikipedia.Sgerbic (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per The Mighty Glen. John from Idegon (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (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 Article content suppressed. ~ GB fan 11:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vuk Lakić[edit]

Vuk Lakić (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 notability established. Non-English language. Dial911 (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, have added a need translation tag to the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, The translation is at Talk:Vuk Lakić. Took 30 seconds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Link title[reply]

thanks Kudpung, Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLPPROD: as it stands now, it is a wholly unscourced BLP. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For heaven's sake, why is this not either WP:G3 or WP:A7? He's 11. The article claims he's a player for FK Slavija Sarajevo. Either this is a hoax, or he's a player on this children's league that's perhaps associated with the grown-up team, one whose best achievement is "player of the match", hardly a credible claim of significance. Largoplazo (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, in accord with my comment immediately above. Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2018 (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. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Ma[edit]

Snow Ma (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 has already been speedily deleted, so hopefully an AfD will stop it being recreated yet again. Can find nothing in English language sources about this person. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is the same person as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xue MA. Timmyshin (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Timmyshin. Curiously, I started that AfD too. But its was back in October, so have no recollection of what was in the article. Edwardx (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Me neither. But I vaguely remember the name (Xue = Snow in Chinese). Timmyshin (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox states, "Born: mǎ xuě". Edwardx (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, i opened some of the refs and translated them, it is Xue Ma, she appears to be an ordinary person and notability isn't established. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2018 (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. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Animal Biotechnology[edit]

Institute of Animal Biotechnology (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 redirected this to the parent article in November.[21] This was reverted by Think O Lantern almost immediately.[22] We had a discussion over this at our talk pages (User talk:Think O Lantern#Institute of Animal Biotechnology and User talk:Aircorn/Archive 8#Institute of Animal Biotechnology). Lfstevens (talk · contribs) has done a good job copy editing it, but the only source is still a link to the universities webpage. There is nothing remarkable about this institute that I can find[23] and being a Institute of a Faculty of a University in a very small country I doubt it reaches our definition of notability. I did consider a merge, but I don't like to merge uncited material into another article as I feel responsible for the content. It would also be WP:Undue to have so much information about this institute. I feel a redirect to Faculty of Agricultural Science and Food in Skopje is sufficient as it is a potential search term and is already listed at the target article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC) AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator There is the National Institute of Animal Biotechnology an Indian institution, which is a much more likely. target[24] This may complicate things (particularly any merges). AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no refs in this article and 2 external links that don't establish notability. The proposed alternate redirect target shouldn't be pursued because there are many of these institutes around the world. A merge shouldn't be pursued because the information in the article isn't encyclopedic, it is mundane. Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, suggest a third relist, the discussion has been on going for months so another week shouldn't be a problem. Szzuk (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even after a month of discussing it, there are zero references in the article, and none suggested here. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect per WP:AFD, but the title is so generic, it's almost pointless. I suppose we could start with the redirect as as other similarly named institutes become known, turn it into a WP:DAB page if necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2018 (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 per WP:SK#1 – The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Engineering Management Bialystok University of Technology[edit]

Faculty of Engineering Management Bialystok University of Technology (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)

Merge with Bialystok University of Technology, not seeing any independent notability. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of media set within one day. Clearly duplicative. It's up to editors to decide which should be merged to which. Sandstein 06:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of works set in a single day[edit]

List of works set in a single day (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)

Duplicate of List of media set within one day. Only nominating at AfD because a previous PROD was declined here by Fayenatic london. wumbolo ^^^ 15:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is related Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_29#Day_in_the_life_of, proposing to delete or change the redirect Day in the life of (previous name of this article, a redirect since 2014 move). --Doncram (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge + redirect This list dates from 2006 while the other one was created in 2012 after a CfD. Unfortunately, neither list has sources, but the latter has a "further reading" section. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep [was "Merge"], per LaundryPizza03, to reward the better sourced one of the two, keeping the edit contributions within the redirect left behind. Besides the duplication, this seems like a very valid topic for a list. There ought to be a corresponding category or two, e.g. Category:Novels set within one day and Category:Films set within one day, or all in Category:Media set within one day.

Actually, Keeping the older (2006) list-article and merging/redirecting the 2012 list-article is technically better, giving more prominent/accessible/proper credit to the oldest contributors. Still needs to be renamed after the AFD, but Keep is the proper AFD decision. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The naming could be better. Frankly the label "media set within one day" is opaque to me. (What is a "media set"? Do you mean agar and other laboratory culture media, and by setting you mean it is supposed to firm up like jello?) How about "Literary works and films set within one day", does that cover everything? I think it does. Renaming can be suggested to be implemented following close of this AFD, by any editor or by a formal wp:RM process. --Doncram (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::@Doncram: Actually, per this, the other article was created because the categories were ruled inappropriate. This may have edit history, but it is unsourced... wumbolo ^^^ 20:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, it's obvious to me that corresponding categories make sense, and these would be consistent with wp:CLT guideline about corresponding list-articles, categories, navigation templates. You can have all three. --Doncram (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I set up Category:Novels set in one day with redirect from a wording variation, am not encountering any notices about a category having been deleted. Really seems obviously sensible, no reason not to have this AFAICT. Whatever other categories were deleted should perhaps be recreated. Please link to any wp:CFD about the categories. [ I see that you did.] --Doncram (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it more, what is worth covering is big works like whole novels and whole TV series set within just one day. Where it is remarkable that all that happens within 24 hours. There are zillions of short stories and short films and so on about single events, where there is nothing special at all about it not covering more than a day. Would every separate episode of a TV talk show count as a work? What about the Seinfeld episode about waiting for a table at a Chinese restaurant. There is nothing special about that not requiring a full day. How about every film covering a track meet or a soccer match... I would hope we want just fictional works, not non-fiction. And for the list and corresponding categories to be sensible for Wikipedia coverage, the 24 hour duration needs to be specifically a notable characteristic about the work, IMHO, so "Novels set within one day" is valid while "Short stories set within one day" is not. --Doncram (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per the previous CFD, what was at issue for films set within one day, was that it seemed to some to be a "Non-defining and trivial characteristic". Well, the answer to the problem is that the categories and list-article need to be about films and novels where the 24 hour limitation is in fact defining and non-trivial. So the TV series 24. And One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. The intro to this list-article and an intro in each category need to clearly state that. This will then easily stand up to any potential criticism. --Doncram (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous CFD was good in identifying that a list-article would be appropriate, but was bizarre and mistaken in deciding to delete the category. There exists better wide understanding of complementary roles of these now; that CFD wouldn't conclude that way nowadays, IMHO. Per wp:CLT, a list-article is great for discussing the overall topic, for including sources and photos and red-links for notable examples not yet having articles. The corresponding categories are complementary, and, among other functions, provide for navigation by readers to the list-article and its learned discussion, and to other examples which quite likely will be of interest. Like for one participant in the previous CFD who commented they were going to seek out more film examples like Breakfast Club to go and see, once they saw that there were such other examples to the one or two they knew about. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect; if the page had been proposed for merger rather than deletion, I would have supported that in the first place. "Work" "Works" is a better choice of word than "media", see e.g. Category:Works by setting. The phrase "within one day" may be preferable to "in a single day", so the target could be renamed accordingly to List of works set within one day. IMHO the briefer "in one day" is not an improvement (pace Doncram). For info, "24 hours" was proposed but not accepted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_25#Category:Films_which_are_set_within_one_day. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Fayenatic london: Is there anything specific about this article that you would want preserved? All articles listed here are listed there. wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: the edit history of the page should be preserved. Deletion would mean that only admins can see it. If there is no current content or parent category that has not already been added to the other page, then it is simply a matter of redirecting. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: there is no imperative to merge, WP:REDUNDANTFORK is a guideline, not a policy. wumbolo ^^^ 21:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Template:R with history says that it should only be used if the page history is substantial and meaningful. Since we don't have anything to merge, why should we live a redirect behind? wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "List of works set in a single day" article was created in 2007 as Day in the life of and long started out "Day in the life of is a device often used in fiction, such as books films, plays and television series, showing the events that happen to the character over a day." That was long ago. The GPL license under which the original contributions were made gives us obligation (and we simply want) to credit the contributors by their edit history being preserved. The topic is re-affirmed to be valid. There is no reason to wipe out their identifying and developing the topic. The newer other list also has contribution history. There is no need to entirely delete its history either.

I prefer to "Keep" the works lists and merge the "media" list, more prominently recognizing its original contributors up to and including Fayenatic london who developed and moved it from the "Day in the life of" name. The AFD participants and contributors to the newer "media" list screwed up in effect by their creating a duplicative list-article, if not a content fork; they were wrong and the original "works" contributors were right.

The newer "media" list has existed as a mere list of links with no explanation and no sources for any items, although it did receive some good contributions of some review articles best 10, best 30 etc. in its "further reading" section which should be moved over.

The original "works" list has been developed some, continuing now with edits by User:Clarityfiend (and by me clarifying up front that it is only to cover defining and non-trivial cases) today, with some description/context provided for some or all its items. It has the better title and development and sources and the longer edit history.

It doesn't really really matter which gets merged to the other, I will grant, but the principle of the older one being kept is a pretty strong one, IMHO. We shouldn't let new creations usurp the older ones willy-nilly. All the participants in the CFD were wrong, in effect, to allow that to happen. --Doncram (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am agreeable to having the naming use "in a single day" rather than "within one day" or, hmm, you are preferring the other way around. Either is probably better than "in a day", sure. And I agree "work" is better than "media". These are aspects of best naming, not about the AFD which is to be closed as Keep or Merge depending upon which one of two lists should be the merger target from the other. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided. The criterion "the one-day duration is a defining and non-trivial characteristic of the work" is the only thing that keeps this list from being indiscriminate, but it's maddeningly vague and hard to apply. Films like Groundhog Day and Run Lola Run certainly qualify, and I guess High Noon does, but do One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and Rashomon? Just because the action takes place over the course of a day doesn't really have any great significance, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think Run Lola Run and Groundhog Day should be covered in List of time loop films [was a redlink, now is a redirect to pre-existing list-article] or the like. They are in Category:Time loop films which is way more defining about them. RLR is about 20 minutes replayed 3 times, not about a whole day. GD is one day replayed many many times, sort of, but it also goes into the next day. It is sort of the opposite of a "limited to 24 hours" film! --Doncram (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Run Lola Run isn't a time loop film, it's simply three separate scenarios, so I've removed that category. Groundhog Day is sort of a weird case. It does, now that you mention it, make it to the next day, but it's so ummm intensely "one-dayish"; the Salon writer thinks so too. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a tangent. It's fine by me if you keep RLR in "single day" category, but don't remove it from "time loop" category....please continue about that at Talk:Run Lola Run#Time loop film category. --Doncram (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: for your information, this is the list article for time loop films. wumbolo ^^^ 17:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! And that is a good example for this page...includes table arrangement, short blurb with source for each one listed. There, I don't think it is as much an issue about whether the items belong. For this, sourcing and perhaps explicit quotes could perhaps more focused to supporting one-day-ness being important. At least if anyone is challenging the inclusion of any given item in the list. Again, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]