< 7 April	9 April >

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) 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Ulz[edit]

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

Ulz lacks notability. The top google hit is his own website, which is also the source for the only reference citation in the article. The second google hit is this article. A check of the sources available above yields commercial websites selling his CDs, and zero dedicated articles, even in his hometown newspaper. And to quote the article itself, "Ulz did not achieve lasting fame as a folk singer/songwriter..." Ergo, delete. Tapered (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "zero dedicated articles, even in his hometown newspaper" claim is false - just look at the references! StefanWirz (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the various reference links on this page yield no dedicated articles, as stated. The article's references are not used as citations. Interesting. The only reference that I could run down using Google Books, Steve Martin's "Born Standing Up," mentions him as the MC in a nondescript nightclub—not the stuff of WP:N. I'm also amending the nomination to quote the article itself! Tapered (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The gentleman is recently deceased, but I'm sorry to say that his notability is indirect at best. The article's main source is Mr. Ulz's own promotional website, which was an operation to promote appearances and sell merchandise. All of the other references are to books that are overwhelmingly about more famous people and which mention Mr. Ulz briefly as a peripheral background figure. Of his many co-written songs, he can be credited accordingly on those that were recorded by notable musicians, but he has received very little reliable coverage as a songwriter, performer, toymaker, etc. in his own right. Unfortunately he did not achieve enough independent notability to merit his own Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:05, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark David Lloyd[edit]

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

There are no WP:RS to establish WP:NARTIST. All the exhibitions are at vanity galleries, and many are 404s. The page on Saatchi Art here [1] is just a social profile **not** Saatchi Gallery, and I find no evidence of any engagement with the legit gallery. Agora Gallery is a known pay to play vanity gallery. Biennial Roadshow's ArtVenice Biennale 3 is **not** the Venice Biennale. And showing with Banksy and Caro is cool, but doesn't establish WP:N. This Bournemouth Echo piece about a mural [2] is the only thing that could come close. Theredproject (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail NARTIST. A piece about him in the Peoria Journal Star, in the context of his works being included in a exhibition. I do not think this is a "significant exhibition". Also a quote in a huffpost contributor piece, but little if anything else. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, no solo shows in notable galleries. Edwardx (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the association with Agora Gallery, a known pay to show gallery ("representation options starting at $3850"!) puts into doubt the artist's credibility. The existing sources amount to an attempt to con the reader into with puffed-up notability claims.104.163.158.37 (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's not shown anywhere important; his only connection with Venice has been the "BIENNIAL ROADSHOW". Bearian (talk) 02:28, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bappusaheb Bhosale[edit]

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

Promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. Supposedly founder president of an organisation - founded in 1972, but he was born in 1977. Edwardx (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article claims nothing about him that would hand him an automatic notability freebie just for existing, it's written more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, and it's referenced to a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of other things, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage that is substantively about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 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 soft delete. Not WP:CSD#A7 eligible. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May Makhzoumi[edit]

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

Not seeing how she is independently notable with respect to her billionaire spouse - WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article from a likely COI editor. Edwardx (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per A7 speedy deletion. startTerminal (haha wow talk page) 23:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BioCode[edit]

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

Vague substub. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 21:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject's lack of wider notability does not mean that it is not important in its host science, i.e. Biology. It concerns the naming of "all kinds of organisms, whether eukaryotic or prokaryotic, fossil or non-fossil, and of fossil traces of organism, that are established (i.e., validly published or made available) and shall govern the choice when names compete among themselves or with earlier names. They shall also, and without limitation of date, provide for the establishment of co-ordinate names within rank groups, for the protection of names, as well as for their correct form." (Source) A world co-ordinated project towards having a unifying nomenclature in a major science is mighty important. The article, however, does a severe injustice to its subject: It's thrown together with less care than the contents of a garbage bin. And, since the BioCode project itself is still in draft form, perhaps the best way forward is merciful euthanasia. -The Gnome (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:36, 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. Sandstein 16:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The TV Ratings Guide[edit]

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

Came across this one in the new pages. The resources provided on the page itself are entirely primary and from the website itself. A quick search on Google turns up nothing but the page, its social media, and some blog mentions. It appears to be a blog created for this purpose. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous credible sources outside of the site alone have now been added.--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see more blogs and some twitter posts, nothing that meets WP:RS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several actual websites, including TVBTN, the Observer, and Alexa. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Various reliable sources, such as TV By the Numbers, have recognized the site as a notable source of news and content. --Tvlover19 (talk) 1:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep. There are many sources to back up that this is a credible site. TV By the Numbers is a prominent website that also has a wikipedia page. -- Bob12967 —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citations to their own site can be ignored. So can those to Twitter, which is not WP:RS. I looked at the others. Not a single one of them is actually about TVRG, and several don't mention it at all (including the citation to The Observer). Alexa Internet merely supplies web traffic analysis (and the three citations to it are identical). No independent in-depth coverage = fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to throw accusations around, but multiple similar arguments all with very similar stilted grammar and all without reference to WP:POLICY make me think of whatever that thing is which separates my shoe from the end of my leg. WP:AFD is, of course, a policy-based discussion, not a majority vote. Narky Blert (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't have to be about the website, the sources prove that the website is used and viewed as a credible source among many popular and respected websites, and has reached a level of credibility and popularity, there's no reason for deletion. And all the sources do mention the site, including the Observer. The site is backlinked. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote stricken.

"The sources don't have to be about the website." The ones supporting notability do.

"And all the sources do mention the site, including the Observer." No they don't and no it doesn't. Narky Blert (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"And all the sources do mention the site, including the Observer. No they don't and no it doesn't." Yes, they do, you conveniently left out the part where I said the site was back linked in many of the sources. The Observer specifically linked the site at the bottom of the article, just like the site was linked and is on every other source given on the page.--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "black link" in the article is inside the word "Nielsen." As far as I know, Nielsen are not related to TVRG. Do you believe they are? Why the Observer chose to link to TVRG instead of Nielsen proper, we do not know. But that's no proof of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article informs readers about site and does not come across in a biased manner. —�- 21:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.147.235.111 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are 2 spa keep votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "There are 2 spa keep votes." That was my count also. Narky Blert (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources ostensibly proving notability number about fifty, an impressive number. At closer inspection, however, almost all of them are not worth the bandwidth they take up.

Alexa Internet will mention or list anything that's online, even if it rates close to zero. The multiple sourcing to Alexa shows weakness rather than strength in terms of notability, unless we believe that every one of the thirty million websites monitored by Alexa is, by that fact, notable.
Then, there's a whole bunch of self-referential links, from Twitter posts down to the official website of TVRG. These are all officially unreliable, primary sources.
Next up are the blogs. Another source that's treated by Wikipedia like an unreliable witness.
Bringing up the stinky rear are sources that mention the subject zero times, such as this one. (Yes, it's TV By The Numbers. Someone above based their vote on account of TVRG mentioned by that source, but a quick check reveals nothing.) Or, you see a link taking you to the Observer and you think, of course, "That's a Jared Kushner company. It's gotta be trustworthy." Alas, this link too contains zero mentions of the subject.

It's a non-notable outfit. No two ways about it. -The Gnome (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have no issues with self-published sources providing they're outweighed by reliable and independent sources .... In this case the majority of sources in the article are self published and the Twitter ones are more or less mentions of the website and that's about it,

Now for independent sources we get 2 results on Google News[3] (This and This), Now the first source is basically that news website crediting an image taken from TVRG, The second source is someone commenting on the article and signing off as "The TV Ratings Guide" ..... so to put it in simple terms there are no independent sources for this website at all .....,

Books are useless as only one book mentions the website[4] however the book is a word for word copy of Craig Ferguson, Another mentions a completely different ratings guide and then the other 5 or so books are unrelated,

If you take away the self-published crap and the one-bit Twitter mentions there is literally nothing... not even a scratch of notability here..... The keeps are laughable at best and should be ignored in their entirety,

If anyone can find any sort of evidence of notability that goes beyond TVRGs website and the half-arsed Twitter mentions then I'm all ears. –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May I suggest an option C? Move the article to a draft space so people can attach "reliable" sources if they exist. Esuka323 (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Esuka323. The AfD has been up since April Fool's Day. Wouldn't you think that such sources would have been found and posted up by the article's many ardent supporter? -The Gnome (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - If sources existed they would've been posted by now, If sources don't exist then it's utterly pointless to move as it would only be stored and abandoned (thus failing WP:NOTWEBHOST), If anyone has found any reliable sources now would be a good idea to present those. –Davey2010^Talk 15:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. WP:AFD should encourage editors to try to save any article worth keeping. If they can't, it's not worth keeping. Narky Blert (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Narky Blert I originally came to this AFD with the plan of !voting Keep and providing a plethora of sources, Unfortunately it wasn't meant to be, Ah well. –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per notability issues with the sources raised by other editors. Esuka323 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Gnome. Nothing showing any real independant coverage that is significant Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhaji Kadam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Using a "slam dunk" joke in a basketball related AfD is a temptation. Resist it. -The Gnome (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:37, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dishant Vipul Shah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Non-notable basketball player. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NBASKETBALL per nomination. "One of his career's highs came when he attended NBA's camp in China in 2009." Says it all. -The Gnome (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trideep Rai[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I see the basketball season is upon us. -The Gnome (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not even meet our ridiculously low notability guidelines for sports figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trilobites (article series)[edit]

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

No references independent of The New York Times, and no clear redirect target where a mention of this series would be reasonable. (it would be undue in the main article on the paper) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable blog/column. Doesn't appear to have won any awards or recognition (compare to Dot Earth), and written by a number of authors, precluding redirecting to a single person. No logical redirect target: if this column must be mentioned on Wikipedia, it should simply be briefly defined rather than linked, e.g. "...featured in the New York Times column 'Trilobites'..." --Animalparty! (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since practically nothing outside the subject's host newspaper can be found that mentions it. -The Gnome (talk) 23:50, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Funnell[edit]

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

per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The coverage appears to be entirely about his tragic death. Quotes such as "one of the best examples of windsurfing talent" in the immediate aftermath of his death can't be interpreted as claims of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL Acnetj (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking independent notability. Removing the words "death", "dead", "mourn", and "funeral" from an online search brings up practically nothing. -The Gnome (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Everything Wrong With... episodes[edit]

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

Pure unencyclopaedic listcruft with virtually no verified information. BangJan1999 20:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dense and un-navigable article with an awful sourcing ratio and a complete 'you have to know the series to understand the list at minimum' type of writing. Nate • (chatter) 21:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete ahh, so someone else was eyeing this after List of Nostalgia critic episodes went up for deletion. Ya beat me to it....💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 21:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was thinking the exact same thing. Nate • (chatter) 23:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FANCRUFT that belongs to Wikia FANDOM! Acnetj (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. XOR'easter (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as a whole, and episodes not notable individually. wumbolo ^^^ 11:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not necessarily required and it is trivia (notably the audio sentences, which some anonymous users add it). Before I came to the page, I also saw the MusicSins video but it was already deleted. (Sculture65 (talk) 16:07, 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 keep. Sandstein 16:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mumtaz Qadri[edit]

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

Assasinated Salmaan Taseer. Otherwise, non-notable. Should disappear per WP:PERPETRATOR. PepperBeast (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Salmaan Taseer; and with far less detail, obviously. -The Gnome (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and note that despite the general rule we do have both Category:Assassins of heads of state and Category:Assassins of heads of government. In this case the political complexity of the celebration of Qadri and his act of political murder argues for keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it meets WP:PERPETRATOR. samee converse 20:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quoting WP:PERP A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person [emphasis mine]. This shouldn't be a separate article, and if there's anything useful that isn't covered in Salmaan Taseer, it should be merged into that article.PepperBeast (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can not vote twice in your own AfD. The AfD in itself is your !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep indeed it meets WP:PERPETRATOR. Act of political murder.BabbaQ (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this meets WP:PERP PepperBeast (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with regret but some obvious reasons. Per WP:BIO1E, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.. Generally, I'm not in favor of keeping bios about low level terrorists but the unfortunate assassination of Salman Taseer attracted wide media attention and is of significant historical importance. This terrorist is subject of massive media attention, and therefore clearly meets the notability criteria, unfortunately. The actions of this terrorist have turned the spotlight onto the issue of blasphemy law in Pakistan and lead to significant debate on the issue. --Saqib (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you for using word terrorist. There is no RS saying him terrorist. His was only one victim. He was convicted and hanged till death, now forgive him. Care to know Osama Bin Laden is not directly named terrorist in Wikipedia. Salute to your loudmouth. --103.218.102.30 (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware term such as "terrorist" should be avoided in article NS but this is not main NS. For what it's worth. Qadri was charged with murder and terrorism and so he was a convicted terrorist. By the way, you should stop using proxies by now.--Saqib (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@103.218.102.30 I'm not aware of a threshold for the number of victims which an assassin has to pass in order to be labeled a "terrorist." What is it? As far as I can remember my History, the anarchist assassins of the 19th century (and some of the 20th) were describing themselves as "terrorizing the ruling classes." By the way, in the article "Osama bin Laden," the word "terrorist" is found thirty-four times. (A bit harsh, you think?) -The Gnome (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia guidelines, its a keep. M A A Z T A L K 20:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we've tended to do this for assassins, horrible as it is. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 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 keep. Consensus is that the sources in the article plus those also provided in the discussion satisfy GNG showing a degree of continuing comment on this match Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small Maracanazo[edit]

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

Tough because it is foreign language, but after a look around, I don't see sufficient sources that indicate this single match passes WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the deletion proposal- The article is translated from sections of the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Pequeño Maracanazo) and the Portuguese Wikipedia (pt:Pequeño Maracanazo). I have included also references taken from publications done in Venezuela about the Venezuelan football: that means to me that it is noteworthy (it is considered one of the highest achievements of the Venezuelan soccer: please read "sp:Fútbol de colonias en Venezuela"). There it is also a university work/publication on it! Sincerely, I don't understand why it has to be erased ONLY in the English Wikipedia........--92no0 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough current coverage, all of the sources in the article are blogs, references 2 and 4 are actually repeated and reference 5 is a picture where the players aren't identified. As a native Spanish speaker and Venezuelan, at first glance I fail to see how the article is notable in the context of the 1971 Copa Libertadores competition.--Jamez42 (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All blogs? there it is one reference from a 'El Universal' newspaper (the main in Caracas) and another from an important Caracas university Phd thesis ([5])...I can add excerpts from the related articles of the Italian newspaper of Caracas: la Voce d'italia.

I am adding to the article these phrases: The victory was received by the Italians of Venezuela with street car caravans in Caracas and it was celebrated by the "La Voce d'Italia" (the main newspaper of the local Italian community) with a special edition ^[1] The brasilian newspaper “Jornal Dos Sport” (of Rio de Janeiro) published the next day an article complaining about this disaster of the powerful Fluminense, champion of Brasil, while pinpointing that the Fluminense vice-president died of a heart attack during the match. After 45 years the Venezuelan newspaper "Ultimas Noticias" still celebrated the victory in 2016^[2]--92no0 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

While this is true, I should note that the PhD thesis is not about the match, but rather of Deportivo Petare (Petare F.C.), which formerly was the Deportivo Italia. There are only five mentions of the Maracaná stadium in the thesis, so I see more appropriate to merge the content with the team's main article per WP:GNG.--Jamez42 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Phd thesis names five times the Maracanã but this is not enough for you and of course the Venezuelan newspapers (from el Universal to el Nacional & Ultimas Noticias & La Voce d'Italia) don't count anything.....like the brasilian Journal do Sport reference .....sincerely, all this is really strange. --92no0 (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO there are evidences of notability, from articles in international newspapers to commemorations. As a further proof of notability I have added the report published "internationally" by the AP (Associated Press) about the match. The report was sent in Spanish (and published, of course often partially, in many newspapers) in all the Latinoamerican countries and Spain.--92no0 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are articles about this in the Spanish and Portuguese wikipedias and big sporting sites such as Globo Esporte and Spanish language sources mention it as well. PMLF (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [6] [7] [8] amongst others still detail what a monumental upset this was. SportingFlyer talk 07:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the article is about not just a notable but a famous subject. Sources from other languages that establish notability are, of course, cceptable in English-language Wikipedia, as long as they are reliable. -The Gnome (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll take back my vote to delete the article because since the article was nominated there's been quite some improvement in it. I still think the article needs work to be done, just not enough to be deleted anymore.--Jamez42 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Same reasons I wrote last week. --92no0 (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)~~ Sorry, multiple voting is not acceptable. - The Gnome (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought that with the "relist" we have to vote again.--92no0 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just because the majority of coverage of this subject are from non-English sources does not mean the subject us not notable. That being said this article does need some major work and clean up if it is kept. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:22, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable blockchain company. The references are about funding rounds (or are of questionable veracity; the NASDAQ ref is simply a re-published personal blog) and don't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources Retimuko (talk) 20:29, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy the Patriot[edit]

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

Promotional in nature; fails WP:NMUSICIAN with lack of reliable third-party sources. No notable, charting music. hiàn 19:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. hiàn 22:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page created by an SPA editor. A search turns up the usual user-download sites, but zero coverage from third party, independent media. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for emergin musicians to advance their career.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:53, 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 16:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewind (England novel)[edit]

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

Not a notable book. The author doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and there is not sufficient referencing for GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one unreliable ref in the article, google returning nothing (almost less than nothing), the author doesn't have a page. Szzuk (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Szzuk. (Noticed this expiring poorly attended AFD, so I added an extra pair of eyes but my poking around uncovered nothing additional to what others have said.) Martinp (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Szzuk. Can't find anything to base this article on. /Julle (talk) 16:38, 16 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. (non-admin closure) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borani Village[edit]

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

Non-notable village in India, don't see the reason to have it even as a stub. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep — Per the very first criterion of WP:GEOLAND, which states that:

[Populated, legally recognized places] are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable.

There is also strong precedent regarding this. So, notability — in this case — is inherent.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 19:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC); edited 14:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no such thing a non-notable village in Wikipedia. Recognized populated places are notable regardless of size. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As already pointed out by others, it clearly meets WP:GEOLAND – [9]. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the others and per WP:5PILLARS. --Oakshade (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the ones above. It's notable as a populated place. SportingFlyer talk 04:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Particles of Truth[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable film. No claims of notability, and the references are to the films own (defunct) website or directory sites like IMDb. The awards don't appear to be significant and have no independent sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rotten Tomatoes shows it has been fully reviewed in multiple reliable sources here including Variety, Hollywood Reporter, New York Post, Village Voice, Slant Magazine and the article quotes a Los Angeles Times review (that link is down and will try to fix it later.) Overall it passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In addition to the reviews mentioned by Atlantic306 this film is discussed in at least one film guidebook: Beyond Bergman: The New Age of Independent and Foreign Films, 1990-2009. Clear keep. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:42, 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. Sandstein 16:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Moguls[edit]

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

No standalone notability. Lots of unreferenced claims and trivia Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there have never been any refs in the article and little content added since article creation ten years ago, nothing on google i can see. Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per Szzuk. I looked as well and found nothing that could be used as sources. Martinp (talk) 14:45, 16 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) 04:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Samsung devices[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY specifically "7. Simple listings without context information." "Examples include, but are not limited to: [...] products and services". Also list includes many items which do not and could not have articles, and is not exhaustive of Samsung "devices" (not that that would be desirable but the list is arbitrary). —DIYeditor (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Most of the smartphone entries are listed under Samsung Galaxy anyhow. Everything else (including specific model numbers of other devices) is non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an obvious WP:SPAM, created solely to advertise certain sites.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 15:12, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Scolaire (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institut Nova Història[edit]

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

Attack page, which begins, The Institut Nova Història...is a cultural foundation of Barcelona...dedicated to the pseudohistory and historical revisionism, with clear political intentions. According to the talk page, it has been translated from Spanish and Catalan Wikipedias. It appears to consist entirely of original research, citing a multitude of primary sources, then presenting the authors' own (extremely negative) gloss. Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue work on the article. They are democratically elected so we have to engage them accordingly, otherwise it results in more ignorance and suffering. Wakari07 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

( I translated the article. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Institut_Nova_Història Here is a discussion that explains that the subject is treated, and how it is involved in the social and political aspect of Catalonia.

I am going to tell you an experience, I knew and I am involved by twitter in Spanish politics since 2 months ago, since I am Venezuelan, I live in Venezuela and i cared about Venezuela, however I almost do not twit, I only retwits things, I do not even look for twits of independent Catalans, but of Unionist Catalans since the start, and despite that on February 2, 2018 attacked me a typical Catalan independentist trying to convince a Venezuelan guy like me of these theories that he believes faithfully, with a lot of messages, and giving me that information and other pages that are not from the institute but others (He gave me two pages giving validity and propagating these things: 'Fundació d'Estudis Històrics de Catalunya' and 'Cercle Català d'Història'). Here are the tweets Obviously I did not convince myself but it made me understand how many Catalans think and about what was the famous Institute Nova History and the Cucurull of which many people speak. In Catalonia, it is quite common that they talk about the subject they have mentioned since i know of Catalan politics--ILoveCaracas (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I ask you to take pictures of these tweets" as they erase things at once when something fails--ILoveCaracas (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this opinion does not go with wikipedia and sorry for that but only for them to see that you have to take evidence of these things, but I personally know that they are experts in manipulating public opinion, they always go from supporters of malcom x, anti-fascists, etc. in favor of everything that loves most of the world, then they send really explosive messages, leaders and university professors, for example, comparing Spaniards descendents of Catalonia with the Maghrebies of France, for example, which they both are " followers of violence and hatred in the host country", or of people doing bad things in the street, then that is bad sight and immediately they try to leave no trace of it. I only say that it does that things like this one do not know and other things that they like them yes. I know that I have already gone politically with this last message but my intention is not this )--ILoveCaracas (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... translated from another language version of WP... those always are difficult. Before we can determine whether to keep or delete, we need someone who can assess the sources... to determine which are reliable, independent, and secondary. Note that the Spanish and Catalan versions of WP may not have the same rules as the English version. It may be that we can keep this after a major rewrite... it may be that we cannot. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources are reliable but you have to keep in mind what I said, and I tried to put direct links of TV3 and Radio Catalunya media and appear me on the Catalan-speaking Catalan independentists's comments putting links that would take to recent interviews of members that made conferences in those main tvs and radios of Catalonia recently, I click and take me to the offcial tv3 page but the file was deleted. Also in other websites, this time of Spanish newspapers today they include a photo of the leaders of this institution talking on TV3. I do not know if that is because as they have all the rights reserved for the interviews they managed to erase them at this time of the internationalization of the process. I am commenting this time only on the sources related to the interviews in the mass media of Catalan television Although I find on youtube enough interviews of these members in the same medias talking this one something recent but mostly that are seen right now are of 20 years ago; I also found enough videos on YouTube when these members talk about all this at the Catalan National Assembly as they are current secretariats of the Catalan National Assembly, and all important members of Catalan independence, some creating anthem for this, organizing all kinds of things, appearing alongside main leaders--ILoveCaracas (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even if the article has a non-neutral point of view on the topic, the topic is suitable to keep. It is not so negative as an attack, but is a negative point of view expressed in our author's voice. Some rewriting may serve to balance it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The institute's ideas seem indeed loony, but that's no reason to delete a well-sourced article about a notable subject. If there's a problem with the article's POV of the institute, it can be dealt with there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve where needed .... WP:Does deletion help?.--Moxy (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I objected here to the links to this article that had been added in the "See also" section in other articles such as the one on Shakespeare, El Cid, etc. but not to the article itself. References should be checked, maybe some could be found in English, but the institution does exist and it does promote these theories. As long as the info is verifiable, the article should remain. Maragm (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Found two refs in English from reputable sources in case anyone wants to add them to the article for referencing. This one and this other one. In this last one, p. 6 of the PDF, it mentions not just Columbus but other historical figures who the Institut also claim are Catalan. Maragm (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From even a cursory check this institute is notable - multiple google news and book hits. I do share nom's concerns regarding POV - however they are best addressed by editing the article - if need be by stubbing it down to a short neutral stub.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 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 speedy delete. User has moved it to draft and tagged. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Saini[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG .There is some trivial coverage regarding a particular incident but little or no coverage of the individual exists outside of the context. Razer(talk) 17:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Razer(User Talk:Razer2115):

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalitmail (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied ((db-user)) to the page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalitmail (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author has move the article to draft space, and subsequently applied ((db-user)) (although the transcribed the template manually, so it might not show properly in the template's categories). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:46, 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. Sandstein 16:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ICC Annual Ranking Update[edit]

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

Per WP:NOSTATS. The tables are updated to show the current ranking in the relevant articles, but there's no need to keep an historical ranking record on WP. Previous attemps to either speedy delete or redirect have been reverted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to back up why these particular sets of rankings are notable, and no proper sourcing is given for the individual ratings tables. Only way to do this is either from page history (which for previous years is often quite sparse) or using Wayback Machine. I have been trying to keep the tables upto date for the last year or 2 but don't see the need for this page. Recent International cricket in yyyy articles have the start of season rankings and I think this is enough Spike 'em (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The countries that ended the year first might be notable, but having a points data of all countries going back to when the ranking system was introduced isn't needed. MT Train^Talk 11:55, 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) 04:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Hojo[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG /–Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:56, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFC champions[edit]

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

Redundant, as this is covered in the NFC Championship article. Piranha 249 16:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge The pages as they stand now consist of two separate sources of information. SportingFlyer talk
Keep - Most of the information here is not included in the NFC Championship article, and does not belong there since that article is about the game, not the team. Rlendog (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid list article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is certainly achieved, the only reason to delete would be any possible redundancy or another "operational" deletion, which is fine for discussion of course. I believe both articles are worthwhile to be kept because the list itself has meaning and the length of the list is becoming large, which can make a single article clumsy or unwieldy. There's likely some crossover (both necessary and unnecessary) so care needs to be taken in the editing of the content of both articles--but that is an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability required for standalone lists. The article for the game has details about the game, its score and location. This list focuses on the details of the team itself and its players. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of AFC champions[edit]

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

Redundant, as this is covered in the AFC Championship article. Piranha 249 16:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge The pages as they stand now consist of two separate sources of information. SportingFlyer talk 21:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the information here is not covered in the AFC Championship article, and does not belong there since that article is about the game, not the team. Rlendog (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid list article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability required for standalone lists. The article for the game has details about the game, its score and location. This list focuses on the details of the team itself and its players. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lanre da Silva[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is part of the Women in Red project and is still under development (see talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lanre_da_Silva) Abonzz (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considerable press coverage in Nigeria. African women in business cannot be expected to enjoy the same international coverage as those from Britain or America.--Ipigott (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where is the in-depth, non-trivial support? There are a large number of women from Africa that are able to meet the requirements. All it takes is a couple of articles that meet the criteria of in-depth, non-trivial support. Your comment that the subject does not only serves to dilute the argument for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lanre Da Silva is very notable. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Please provide example of how she meets WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is mentioned in several books on African fashion. The info has been added to the article.Abonzz (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being mentioned in a book is far from in-depth, non-trivial support. The book mentions do not support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is mentioned in the book "Fashion Africa" as being a fashion favourite and receiving numerous accolades. The authour of the book is an industry expert : https://books.google.ca/books?id=-ZtnAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA155&dq=lanre+da+silva,+fashion+africa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaqemY6K_aAhWGmeAKHRfYC4gQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=lanre%20da%20silva%2C%20fashion%20africa&f=false
Italian Vogue has also done several articles on her and other articles cite her as being a leading designer in Nigeria. I added the new info to her wikipedia page so you can check it out. Abonzz (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bucketload of sources turn up on a news search. She's also mentioned in this UNESCO report, though I can't get a Google Books preview so I don't know how much coverage is there. I can't see any evidence that the in-depth Punch article isn't a reasonable source to use. Remember that Nigerian people will generally have less online coverage than what we see on Western topics. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strikes me as having received enough press coverage to meet the notability guideline. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient indications of notability to meet GNG. Selected to participate in the UN's Fashion for Development 2012, [10] Naomi Campbell opened 2018 Arise Fashion Week wearing her design,[11] features in Elle [12] and Vogue [13] clearly indicate notability. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability criteria per all of the above. -- The Anome (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elle and Vogue, in consideration of fashion, are for sure important news, the opposite of trivial. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple sources , Notability found Samat lib (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SusunW. Multiple sources. Meets notability criteria. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:56, 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 redirect to Sound of Silver. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Great[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG in my opinion, in that though it's a great song, I am concerned that the song has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: wonderful song, but it looks like the nominator could be right here, it fails WP:NSONG. Doesn't appear to have charted anywhere in the world – it's likely it got reviewed in NME in the UK and maybe in Billboard or Spin in the US when it came out, but that's not going to be enough to confer notability. Most commentary on the song is probably going to be in passing as part of the reviews of its parent album. A redirect to Sound of Silver might be in order unless someone can come up with some good sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sound of Silver. This article does not get too far beyond the song's existence, but per WP:EXIST that is not enough. Tidbits about the video's production can be mentioned at the album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Baker (basketball)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Coverage of his suspension and DUI are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Note that in the previous nomination which ended in "no consensus", many claimed his playing in Mexico met NBASKETBALL per its prior "similar major professional sports league" loophole. However, that wording has been removed since 2016. —Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (again) - doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The update to WP:NBASKETBALL does not give a pass to this article anymore. No indication these routine reports meet GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As creator of the article I have to agree, now that I see that Baker does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL due to the limited scope of news coverage in both his shortened collegiate and pro careers. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; also per creator. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per GNg and NBasketball. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:48, 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) 04:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Quezada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable former minor league baseball player who is currently a coach in the Arizona rookie league. Notability requirements for baseball players have tightened since this was last nominated for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last AfD (from 2009) was a "no consensus" with WP:GHITS being the basis of the keep rationale. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. At least in 2009 one could argue redirect because WP:TOOSOON. Now we know he's not going to play in the majors. Can be recreated if he ever ends up coaching in the majors. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 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) 04:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames of Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

Fails basic notability requirements. I can see no reason not to include this information in the Washington, D.C. article.

Delete, the Washington, D.C. article has a section on nicknames and there is no reason for a separate article MarkZusab (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment: In the DC article it seems barely more than clutter and trivia, and has been removed (pending Talk page discussion). If this article is headed for the dustbin it should be because it's OR, Synthesis, trivia and almost certainly incomplete; and not because it can be shoehorned into the main article.

It's also almost completely redundant of the info contained at List of city nicknames in the United States. JohnInDC (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's nearly duplicated in List of city nicknames in the United States, plus Washington doesn't really have a well-known nickname. DMV? Is that supposed to be the next Big (Rotten) Apple? Hey, now there's a thought ... Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being the seat of redundancy. -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:48, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Note that editors added source and context after nominating. (non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Chelsea F.C. season[edit]

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

~~No source~~
~~No context~~
2017–18 season is not over yet Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 2016-17 season article was created in April 13, 2017-18 was a bit later on May 8, so why delete this just to re-create in next week or even next month? By the time this discussion is over, there will already be many sources discussing next season. If we discuss for a couple of weeks and decide to delete, it's likely someone will put it back up within a day. I can find plenty of sources about Chelsea's 2018 summer and pre-season already. We can be sure that the 2018-19 Chelsea season is going to happen and will be notable per WP:NSEASONS. In the unlikely outcome that it doesn't happen or isn't notable, there will still be an article about why it didn't happen or wasn't notable. Just go with it. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that we know it would have been created very, very soon anyway and it's probably at the earliest date of creation where you can probably just about get away with it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis that they have already clinched a place in the 2018–19 Premier League and have started making arrangements for pre-season (the friendly in Australia). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in agreement, although this is early whats the point in deleting something to recreate it again a few weeks later. Govvy (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The version when it was nominated was not sufficient as an article. However, after the expected event (friendly match) was added with citation, it seem sufficient as an article, despite more major content would only appeared after May. Matthew_hk t c 17:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems pointless bureaucracy to delete this when pre-season matches are only three months away, at which point the article would get re-created -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 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. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wits Solar Car[edit]

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

University student project. Fails WP:Notability Park3r (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for jumping the gun. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 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 redirect to 30 km/h zone. Content can be merged from history if it is sourceable. Sandstein 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20's Plenty for Us[edit]

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

Non-notable article, no references. A bit of googling around shows mostly fliers, powerpoints, and mentions. Nothing that really shows notability. The prose of the article is unencyclopedic, as well as possibly promotional. _{Vermont | reply here} 13:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Partly promotional, partly attack page, almost no good sources. Also, there's not much chance of good sources, as press coverage tends to be of campaigning, normally joint with other road safety groups, rather than of the organization itself. (My CoI declaration; I'm a member of 20's Plenty and a local rep.) Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Non notable organisation, unsourced and completely fails WP:NPOV. Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an unsourceable bunch of rabid Daily Mail readers. Get rid. (I am disappointed I cannot set off a 20mph speed camera on my pushbike). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, would it perhaps be better as a redirect to 30 km/h zone? With mild boldness, I've replaced the content with the redirect code, while leaving the AfD notice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that seems like a shout: Merge with 30 km/h zone!--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 05:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the article is badly written, but I'm finding lots of coverage of the campaigns. In rough order of quality of sources:
The ones lower down on the list are mostly coverage in local media, but higher up are articles in publications on this side of the pond, which shows more than local interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, a merge to 30 km/h zone would be reasonable as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 16 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.

Melanie Melanson[edit]

The result was keep. I'll revisit this is six months, hopefully with good-faith editors who read the full rationale. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chalk this one up to "missing white girl syndrome". The majority of sources are databases for missing persons (and YouTube videos), but Wikipedia is not a database for missing persons. We also have the routine "X years later..." stories with no actual in-depth analysis or impact. I feel for the family, but tragedy does not equate to instant notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't so much "missing white girl syndrome" as the fact that the editor who created this is known for making these types of articles all the time.★Trekker (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom might want to strike her race-based assertion on the grounds that this editor appears to create articles on a race-neutral basis (Disappearance of Cleashindra Hall). E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall attributing "missing white girl syndrome" to the article's creator, so no. Rather, I do recall attributing it to the "X years later..." coverage that is actually described in my rationale. Perhaps you want to re-read it E.M.Gregory and tell me where the article's creator is mentioned so I may strike it? TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And given that we try to keep our AfD discussions race-neutral (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Cleashindra Hall). E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory "missing white girl syndrome" is an observed social phenomenon. I cannot "unobserve" it unfortunately. I don't complain when you call suspects in criminal cases jihadists or terrorists "race-neutral" AFDs before an official investigation does. Why is observing a social phenomenon on disproportionate (but routine) news coverage somehow different? And can you elaborate as to why you are linking to an AFD I never participated in? TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although sourcing in article is poor, there has in fact been INDEPTH, ONGOING coverage of the search for for the body and for clues about the perp in major regional dailies (I have excluded duplicate/echoed stories). Menlanson went missing in 1974. Boston Herald: Divers search pond for body of missing Woburn teen-ager, (7 Aug. 1992;) Decades-long search rekindled with $5G (7 May 2009); DA mum on search for girl (25 Sept. 2009); Lowell Sun, Private search resumes for Melanie Melanson (18 Aug. 2012). Boston Globe, 20 years later, search for girl continues: Police reportedly scour Woburn site, (25 Sept.2009,) Search resumes in 1989 case of missing teen: Woburn student was last seen at party in woods (29 July 2012); She deserves proper burial, (6 May 2009). And more similar. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as E.M.Gregory pointed out that this article contains ongoing coverage. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - lack of valid deletion rationale. "missing white girl syndrome" is not a valid deletion rationale (nor is NOTNEWS for a clear non-news issue). What is relevant for assessing notability of the event is coverage. In this case it is easy to see we have continuing in-depth coverage of this possible murder - e.g. in 2015, 2013, 2012, [2014, 2011, 2009. Coverage is INDEPTH and CONTINUING. As for the editorial considerations of NEWSORGS - take it up with the editors there - not with Wikipedia's editors. Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep indeed. I'll gladly revisit this issue with editors who read the full rationale. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:29, 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 speedy delete. It's an unattributed copy paste of multiple sources, internal and external, so deleted speedily —SpacemanSpiff 12:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Yog Physiotherapy And Yoga Class[edit]

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

Not sure what to class this as, its title implies promotion of a class but the text reads like it duplicates existing articles. All seems a bit Forky. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 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 keep. There is a rough consensus that Murtaja was a notable person and/or that his death is a notable event. Several people suggested that the article could be moved to Death of Yaser Murtaja or similar, but there was no consensus on that. As neatly summarised by K.e.coffman, "whether the article is a biography or the Killing of Yaser Murtaja is immaterial to the notability of the subject". – Joe (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yaser Murtaja[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL - of this WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E individual. little coverage of the individual exists outside of the context of being killed in the 2018 Gaza border protests, where this is already covered Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As you would say, not so fast. An investigation is ongoing surrounding the circumstances of this journalist's death. Because the Israeli military is "investigating", I doubt anyone will be charged, but the impact will exist in how it demonstrates Israel's disproportionate use of force and inability to protect the press. If I am wrong later on, redirect it. But if he was anyone other than a Palestinian, this wouldn't even be a discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary - we delete casualties of events in a routine fashion, when we have an article on the event itself - which in this case we have.Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to gather a few dozen diffs of you voting "per RAPID" for similar incidents with similar coverage? Keep the same quality of coverage, but change "Palestinian journalist" to "Israeli civilian" and the attitude changes. The fact is this incident is being reported independently, and a simple title change "Killing of Yaser Murtaja" addresses your BLP1E concern.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Killing of Yaser Murtaja is not distinct from 2018 Gaza border protests in which he was killed. I am actually quite consistent in my AfD !votes (which are not ethnicity dependent) - had this been a standalone incident and not part of the coverage of the clashes - I would've supported a rename. When I !vote RAPID - it is when the event itself is distinct (with plausible inclusion in some multi-year list - here the 2018 Gaza border protests spans a couple of weeks - and per NOTMEMORIAL we do not create articles for individual casualties).Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to argue this much further since it is rather obvious where this nomination is heading. And I won't even bother arguing for you to apply the same standards to all subjects. I have known you (and a few others) for too long to ask that of you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per noted saints and martyrs. Wakari07 (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC) The SCMP qualifies him as "well-known". Wakari07 (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He had a short blurb in an AJ piece in 2017 - "The civil defence workers hesitated … the paramedics were strongly against it because their colleague was killed that morning", says cameraman Yaser Murtaja. "They were worried they'd be bombed if they entered the area." [14] - which does not move him beyond 1E territory. All of the substantive coverage relates to his death in 2018 Gaza border protests.Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion does not change the headline of the South China Morning Post, meaning he was well-known before his death. Well-known Palestinian journalist Yasser Murtaja dies as Israel border clash escalates Wakari07 (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please present the sources dating before his death that discuss him--Shrike (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. It's up to you to prove those articles don't exist. Wakari07 (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC) But here is a second one, from CBS, saying in the article body he was "well-known" (again implying, before his death). Wakari07 (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Alaa :)..! 13:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The man's biography showed that he was well known in several parts of the Arab world and in his field before his death--باسم (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (change to redirect) this WP:BIO1E. and Redirect to 2018 Gaza border protests#6 April. Editors arguing "k" above have failed to produce any evidence that this individual was notable before he was killed along with several others while participating in the [[2018 Gaza border protests; and my search using Proquest news archive [15], limited to before 1 April 2018, found nothing. If an individual is even remotely notable by our standards, that search would have produced some sort of mention. WP:NOTMEMORIAL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also search in the Arabic language? Wakari07 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proquest news archive searches on his fairly unique name of course show all languages writtn in the Latin alphabet. I date-limited my search to before 6 April 2018 - and Proquest found absolutely nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not a WP:BIO1E situation and per WP:RAPID; plenty of coverage + on-going investigations. Deaths of journalists in conflict zones are generally notable; I don't see a reason to delete this article under current policies and guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several articles refer to him a well-known journalist within Palestine and cite why he was a well-known journalist, for his coverage of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, (e.g. surviving shujayea) his use of drones and his co-founding a media company in Palestine. Unlike other people killed, there has been much coverage about his death, per se, separate from the coverage of the 2018 Gaza protests. Thus, clear keep. --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Kou Dou 17:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While an al-Durrah-style Pallywood production cannot be ruled out, the article is for now a Keep if nothing else because of calls from within Zionist Union Ministers of Parliament on the Knesset to put the supposed shooter on trial.^[1]. XavierItzm (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial and he is known only for his unfortunate death. I don't think he had an article if he wasn't killed in the demonstrations. His work not that significant. Sokuya (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — He isn't a "low-profile individual" as outlined in BLP1E. Work on Human Flow, multiple documentaries, and as founder of a media organization qualify him under WP:ARTIST. Independent coverage of the death is clearly specific to him and biographical: [16] [17] [18].--Carwil (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Was he credited in any of those films? I am particularly puzzled by the claim abotu Human Flow. I see that the NPR story states that "Murtaja's colleagues said he'd done videography work for the BBC, VICE and other international media, and had worked with Chinese artist Ai Weiwei on his 2017 documentary, Human Flow," an Wei Wei film about the European migrant crisis. The NPR story does not support his participation, is there a source that does? and does it stat what his role was? I am looking for evidence of notability independent of the circumstances of his death.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

answering my own question, Murtaja is one of the many "assistant cameramen" credited, but I can find no secondary sources on mention his work as a cameraman until this week.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relevant information can be added to 2018 Gaza border protests.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clearly plausible that he will ultimately be found notable enough for an independent article, either from his past work or from the consequences of his death or both. That's all that's needed to keep the article for now under WP:RAPID. FourViolas (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what is lacking in all the Keep !votes is any sources (in English or Arabic) establishing notability - essentially we have a cameraman (one of hundreds in Gaza) who has done routine (yes, filming conflict in Gaza is routine for a cameraman) and got an "assistant cameramen" credit in Human Flow. He might have been first to fly a camera drone in Gaza (some sources say so - though fact checking this is difficult) - but that's not grounds for notability. In the meantime, following the burst of coverage around the funeral, coverage has mainly moves on to other issues regarding the conflict in Gaza.Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
note on sourcing There is no doubt that this man's death during the 2018 Gaza border protests is notable within the context of those protests. However, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Editors argue that he was notable in life due to his work as a cameraman. However, his listing at IMDb, here: [19] shows only a single film on which he was an assistant cameraman. Moreover, searches on his name in a Proquest news archive search on aoo dates before 6 April 2018 produce nothing at all. Nor do searches in books and in scholarly journals. His life was sadly brief, but not notable. His death is notable within the context of the 2018 Gaza border protests, where it is already discussed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about the person before he was killed, I have done a lot of searches on him and found nothing notable. The information about him as such could be added to the Gaza riots, also what I can find out he was a captain in the HAMAS security forces and a part-time photojournalist.BernardZ (talk)
Comment: 1. Shooting of Yaser Murtaja has already surpassed the GNG threshold: there is sustained coverage by multiple reliable sources of the shooting, funeral, investigation etc. So any "delete" votes should be rename votes. 2. We have several sources speaking to his notability as a journalist: "was a rising star in Gaza’s media scene where he was a co-founder of the Ain Media, a collective of a dozen local media professionals, which has worked with Al Jazeera, BBC Arabic and Vice in the past." (Screen Daily); ; "He was a respected cameraman for documentaries - most notably, Al Jazeera's 'Gaza: Surviving Shujayea'." [20]; "Murtaja, a 30-year-old photographer well known for his drone footage" [21]. 3. The role of Murtaja in the events surrounding the protests (including the emergence of an Israeli investigation into civilian deaths), his role is arguable "substantial and well-documented" as required by BLP1E.--Carwil (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of problems with Carwil's argument. We can satisfy WP:PRESERVE by with a REDIRECT to 2018 Gaza border protests. Note that this is one of a series of investigations being undertaken into the deaths, which can and should be covered at 2018 Gaza border protests. (and note that media outlets are now reporting an allegation that he, like many of the projectile-throwing protest marchers, was a Hamas activist.) The press reports that he was a notable journalist or cameraman have not been substantiated; assertions of this sort are often made by mourners, which is why we have WP:NOTMEMORIAL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously notable, there has been coverage on the Times of Israel and in less local news in general about Murtaja's death for a couple days now. However it is obvious that Murtaja is notable primarily through the way he died, so I would not be opposed to the article being moved to Shooting of Yaser Murtaja or Death of Yaser Murtaja if the article is kept. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep pr all of the above, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a single event and has the sources to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a POV-pushing page with no demonstration of subjects notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 Gaza border protests per EM Gregory. There's no need for a separate bio or a "Death of" rename.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was unknown before his death as was his media company. There has been some coverage, but this was not an isolated incident involving him. I have found no information involving his media company prior to his death. I doubt the media company was even a full time job as he was found to be on Hamas' payroll. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wrestling back and forth on this question for the past several days, but ultimately I am persuaded to Delete by Icewhiz and E.M.Gregory. No sources have been provided that would tend to substantiate the notion that Murtaja was either notable by virtue of being a cameraman or that he was a notable cameraman. At this time, it would be appropriate to merge information on Murtaja's killing to 2018 Gaza border protests. The only thing that gives me pause is that, at some point—pending the results of the IDF's investigation and the volume of coverage from RS—it's possible that the section on Murtaja's killing could become large enough to justify a spinoff (not on the non-notable Yaser Murtaja, but rather on the possibly notable Killing of Yaser Murtaja). However, it is by no means clear that the current coverage demands such a split, or that 2018 Gaza border protests is too big to include all of the relevant information at this time. In any case, Murtaja himself is not notable merely by virtue of his untimely death.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Coverage is still ongoing [22][23][24][25]. Apparently, many people aren't buying Israel's unsubstantiated claim that he was a member of Hamas. Editors are also forgetting, if he isn't notable as a person, the event is undoubtedly notable for Israel's disregard for the safety of the press and the ongoing investigation. All we would require is a title change and a slight change in focus.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/MK-demands-soldier-who-killed-Gaza-photographer-be-put-on-trial-549184

Keep for three reasons:

1. He stands far ahead in terms of profile versus the other casualties of the recent weeks’ events: e.g. Audrey Azoulay, the DG of UNESCO, condemned his killing personally.[26]

2. His identity has been subject to intense political debate, with the Israeli Defence Minister leading the charge.[27] What resonates with me most here is that if he really was a “high-ranking member of the military wing of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas”, we wouldn’t be having this deletion discussion - there are many articles covering such people in wikipedia.

3. There are already reasonably detailed articles on the same topic in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedias. Technically this shouldn’t matter as each languange’s Wikipedia is autonomous, but to me it just shows the global angles here. Let’s not forget WP:WORLDVIEW.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: those voting delete / redirect as BIO1E are ignoring the ongoing, diverse, international coverage of this rather unusual event (death of a journalist by the Israeli military while covering a protest). Unless people believe that such events are not "unusual"? See:

Global outrage mounts over Israeli killing of Yaser Murtaja, from ‘NYT’ to Federation of Arab Journalists | Mondoweiss

Killed Palestinian Journalist Had Passed U.S. Screening For Grant Funds | NPR

Terrorist or journalist? Who really was the slain Gazan Yaser Murtaja? | The Jerusalem Post

This definitely meets WP:NEVENT; whether the article is a biography or the Killing of Yaser Murtaja is immaterial to the notability of the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we already have an event, which is not overly long, 2018 Gaza border protests. Frankly I am surprised by your stance here K.e.coffman - going by this logic would lead to the notability of many recipients of the Knight's Cross who were covered in the press at the time and in subsequent publications. Nothing has been shown to establish the notability of the subject outside his death during 2018 Gaza border protests.Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still have hardly touched on why the event itself--the shooting by Israeli snipers (or, according to you, the "alleged" shooting by Israeli snipers)--is not notable. You cannot deny coverage is independent of the protests themselves. Considering your stance is to routinely keep articles on any Islamist or Palestinian terror attacks with the same amount of coverage, if not less, I am as surprised as you for not being open to shifting focus slightly to the shooting (or "alleged" shooting) itself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had the shooting (which is established fact AFAIK) occured in a context that did not have a wiki article - e.g. some non-notable otherwise border incodent, then yes - I would have supported a "shooting of" article. However as we already have an article on the clashes, there is little cause for individual wiki articles for casulties - even when they have some subsequent human interest and spin (from both sides) coverage the week after.Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz Islamist and Palestinian attacks occur in a context that both have Wikipedia articles as well. Yet I constantly see articles kept on attacks by an Islamist or Palestinian that may wound one person or kill just the perpetrator, and receive equal or less coverage. No lasting impact and nothing beyond the routine "human interest" as you described it. I know you can throw out WP:OSE as your next excuse, but do you not realize the double-standard you are supporting? Honestly?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because we do not have an article on the event (we do gave on the wider multi-year conflict). Casulty count is not a notability criteria. The parallel to this article would be individual casulty pages for 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict or Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) (and those are long pages, meriting spinoffs, unlike 2018 Gaza border protests presently.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was more about the coverage and lasting impact, not casualty count, but whatever. The problem is you choose to not see the double standard.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm clearly late to the party here, but it seems clear the article's subject is notable almost exclusively for how he was killed. Why don't we have a page, "Death of Yaser Murtaja" (or "killing" "shooting" etc, doesn't really matter), where the controversy over it can be discussed. I have seen such pages made for other such deaths protest situations, where the actual person who died wasn't notable except regarding how they died. --Calthinus (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the 3 week event 2018 Gaza border protests.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we routinely include cases similar to this within the larger event. For example, two protestors have been killed in the very similar weekly protests at Bil'in in which projectiles are thrown from slingshots at Israeli soldiers guarding the security fence. The dead have sections, in the main article, Bil'in#Deaths not have independent articles. Or consider the protests last summer in Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S. , Unite the Right rally, where a car-ramming attack killed a protestor. Not only is there no article on the dead woman- despite massive coverage of her in the news at the time, the article on the car-ramming attack, 2017 Charlottesville attack, was redirected to Unite the Right rally#Vehicular attack and homicide. What I am not seeing in the "keep" arguments is a reason to maintain a separate article when we can follow our usual practice of WP:PRESERVE by redirecting to the main article on the protest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory Well you may remember that I opposed the deletion of 2017 Charlottesville attack. Regarding deaths in protest situations, we do have Death of Neda Agha-Soltan-- it's obviously not the exact same situation but it still could be used for comparison. But in the end it will be what editors including yourself think is best for representing the info in a way that adheres to neutrality, notability and other guidelines. This is a way that memorial-esque aspects of the page (i.e. his love of traveling-- really not important in the grand scheme of things) while also producing a solution that is acceptable to what looks like the majority with the view that the event of his killing was notable and deserves a separate page. But I do also respect the views of those on both sides who have much more experience than myself in handling controversial topics in this domain. --Calthinus (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

counterexamples always exist, but we routinely redirect even victims like Taylor Force - who would pass the WP:10 year test due to the Taylor Force Act - to the article on the event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather D. Heyer will be of interest to editors here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:52, 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 Draft-ify - moved to draft by Spiritualbanda (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Extended closing note for @Saqib: or others: My expectation was that by the creator moving the article to draft-space, it would not return to article space without being approved by WP:AfC. After an excessive amount of moves by the page creator, I have opened a new AfD at the article's new title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indu Prakash (astrologer). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Indu Prakash[edit]

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

Most of the coverage about this Astrologer in India TV website which I think is not independent of the subject so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Indu Prakash is very famous astrologer in India. He is not only just TV Astrologer but awarded with numerous accolades and awards, I am getting more references and sources from more refined portals. He is an astrologer of many public figures that include politicians and Bollywood. He has also been awarded from US-based wall street journal. Well, I am moving that content to drafts, once my search will complete, I will then move it back to original article. I think it is fair enough. Trust me, He is among most famous astrologers in India.--Spiritualbanda (talk) 12:40, 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. Sandstein 16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tip of the day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, does not pass WP:GNG, as a concept: no reliable non-primary sources discuss the concept. Fails WP:NEO: all sources provided use the phrase, they don't mention it. See: Use–mention distinction. The keep voters from the last discussion didn't provide any reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 11:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – using google, you can find tip of the day web features on many subjects. I even ran into one on meditation. Tip of the day features also abound in software programs. There are thousands of tip of the day features out there, some within programs that have millions of users. — The Transhumanist 14:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: you provided an immediate reference to that website. Do you have a reliable reference for the fact that there are thousands of tip of the day features? wumbolo ^^^ 14:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On google, "tip of the day" gets 14.6 million results (in comparison, "ski lift" returns 5.77 million results). I have yet to find a page about tip of the day features in general or about programmers including such a feature in a software's design, amongst the thousands of tip of the day features that come up. That is, in search results, any coverage there might be about them is obscured by links to the features themselves. They are a widespread element of modern information society. I don't think it serves our readers well to require our editors to play blind and pretend they don't exist. See WP:IAR. We should retain the article while the search for references continues. — The Transhumanist 21:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status report: I've asked for help in the hunt for references over at the Reference Desk. Here's the link: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#Need references about tip of the day features. — The Transhumanist 06:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: Google hits are not a valid keep argument. wumbolo ^^^ 06:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't present it as an argument, but to provide perspective in the description of the problem encountered hunting for references: the 14.6 million search results suggest a likelihood of the existence of references, and therefore may help in deciding whether or not it is worthwhile to conduct a search. I think it is. I followed it with the suggestion that we hold off from deletion while the search continues, and I'm still waiting for your response on that. I see this discussion as a collaboration to fix a problem. To solve that problem, I believe we should focus on fixing the article, by searching for references. And toward that end, to make this more fun, I have a challenge for you: Can you find one before I do? I doubt it. ;) Whoever finds one first gets a Rescue Barnstar from the other (assuming the reference leads to keeping the article). Do you accept the challenge? — The Transhumanist 07:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It's an article of practically circular notability, if any. The logic probably goes: A subject is a well trodden expression in common language - so it must have its own Wikipedia entry. Well, Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor a depository of expressions. (Note: The article is not about Wikipedia's Tip of the Day. OK, don't have me giving you ideas.) -The Gnome (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per nom and Gnome.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a useful article that is well referenced, the last AfD was a conclusive keep 6 months ago, nothing changed in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree with Szzuk that the article is well referenced. It certainly has a lot of references, but they're almost all just examples of use. I don't see any WP:RS that discuss this as a concept. The closest I see is the Stack Overflow page, but Stack Overflow, being user-contributed content, is not a WP:RS. It's certainly a highly respected and valuable resource for programming knowledge, but doesn't meet our definition of a WP:RS because it lacks editorial control. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 16 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. – Joe (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khakan Sajid[edit]

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

Not notable at present. Doesn't pass WP:GNG M A A Z T A L K 11:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing is horrifically bad: Facebook, commcerial imprints, and a single listing in a single minor library website. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 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 16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Wojtczak[edit]

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

Dubious notability; almost all refs are from the author's own website. Reads like an autobio. Pseudomonas_(talk) 10:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched briefly but did not find good sources. Seems like a vanity page. Has been here since 2005! 104.163.158.37 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR. -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all citations link to a webpage for a press she owns. Looks like a vanity page for me. Shocked it's been around so long! - Poetnerd (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2018 (BST)
Comment The AfD process may end up by eliminating the contested article. This should not be taken by either the article's creators and contributors or the article's subject to mean that Helena Wojtczak is some kind of "unworthy" individual. Probing the texts about her life reveals a person who worked for many years in (what used to be considered at the time as) a "man's job," with all the related difficulties, such as causal sexism and verbal intimidation. Wojtczak managed to educate herself at the same time and write history books about women in the workplace. Unfortunately, Wikipedia rules (i.e. WP:AUTHOR) are, or have become, rather strict about inclusion. So, we carry on, sometimes merrily, sometimes not. -The Gnome (talk) 07:29, 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 keep. I withdraw this per work of PamD and naming inconsistency. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theodimir[edit]

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

I initially draftified this but it was soon brought back into mainspace. I have to re-read thi stub many times to find how this person meet notability guideline but I couldn't. He only existed, and even that according to the stub only little is known about him, maybe he never even existed. This is non notable person. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not sure this is evident because no indication is given, but the article is an attempt at direct translation of es:Teodomiro (santo), and a similar (poorly-formatted) translation has also been done by the same editor at fr:Théodemir (Saint). It is unclear to me that the correct spelling has been selected for the rendering of this saint in English - I find two 19th century English language sources that call him Theodomir. In terms of notability, I find multiple book-length monographs concerning this saint (including the one cited as ref 1 of the article), plus a couple of journal articles (perhaps more, but I can't tell from the titles if some of them refer to this man or the Visigoth general). I also find mention of a Jesuit colegio in Carmona named in his honor that was active in the 17th and 18th centuries, and a "calle San Teodomiro de Carmona" in Seville. Taken together, this would seem to satisfy WP:BIO, although the only one I have been able to view is from 1805, and perhaps not what a modern scholar would deem 'reliable'. That is not to say the article is a good one: even the original Spanish one is problematic, but I don't think notability is the problem. Still, we may want to blow it up and start from scratch. Additional works:

Francisco Xavier Cebreros, Vida del señor San Teodomiro Mártir, natural y patrono de la ciudad de Carmona, Madrid: Josef del Collado, 1805.

Salvador Fernández Álvarez, Devociones populares : San Teodomiro, hijo y patrón de Carmona, Sevilla, 1952

Fernando de la Villa Nogales, La imagen de San Teodomiro Mártir : abogado, hijo ilustre y patrón de Carmona : conmemoración del IV centenario de la traída de las reliquias de San Teodomiro a Carmona, 1609-2009, Carmona [Sevilla] : F. de la Villa, 2010

Tomás de Aquino García y García, "San Teodomiro. hijo ilustre y patrón de Carmona y mártir de Córdoba", Archivo hispalense: Revista histórica, literaria y artística, v. 39, Nº 120-121, 1963, pp. 79-113

José Manuel Delgado Rodríguez, "Las Coplas de San Teodomiro, Patrón de Carmona", Carmona : Revista de estudios locales, Nº. 2, 2004, pp. 350-402

Agricolae (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello I am the creator of the article, and I will address the claims made. First, I am not sure what Teodomiro's name is translated to in English since there seems to be many different translations so I apologize if I used the incorrect one. Second, St Teodomiro is certainly relevant - he is a Saint and he has big proccessions in Carmona([28]). Finally, there isn't that much else I could add about his life. For example the book by Francisco Xavier Cebreros is mostly about Carmona and whether or not St Teodomiro was from there, whether or not he was a Benedictine monk, whether or not he was martyr, etc. I don't really know what else I could add about his life, since the only source from that time available is the Memorialis Sanctorum, which I cannot find online so I couldn't cite. –Albertobarbossa (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could explain that there is some uncertainty over whether he was from Carmona, whether he was a Benedictine monk, whether he was a martyr, rather than simply stating these things as fact because that is what the es.wiki page said. At a minimum, you should look at the policy on interwiki translations and make sure that you follow the rules regarding appropriately attributing translated material. You should also fix the faulty formatting in the fr.wiki translation. What you don't want to do is find a copy of the Memorialis Sanctorum - using this primary source would violate policy prohibiting Original Research. This is the hidden context behind the requirement for notability being based on significant mention in reliable secondary sources: if there aren't enough secondary sources to allow you to write the article without going to the original records, then you can't write an decent article without violating policy. (Here it looks like there are secondary sources, it is just a problem of laying hands on them.) Agricolae (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough for notability for a saint, but needs work - I've done a little, found another source listing him by a different spelling, linked to the French and Spanish articles, added him to the name page at Theodemir (given name). If you can find an online copy of the Memorialis Sanctorum, add it as an External link. (I thought I was going to find one at Eulogius_of_Córdoba#External_links, but the link to "Latin writings" wasn't working - worth trying again in case it was just a temporary outage). PamD 07:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like PamD's new source calls him Theodemir. If this AfD ends as 'keep', I think a page rename is in order, not only for this page but for some of the others at Theodemir (given name), where it is evident we have used seemingly arbitrary spelling choices to disambiguate people of the same name (e.g. the page Theudimer lists a different spelling first before the one used for the page name). It seems to me all of the spelling variants should point to the disambiguation page, and the individual pages given true disambiguating names, except where there is an indication that a given name form is used exclusively to refer to a specific individual. Agricolae (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I understand the initial nomination, through the work of Agricolae and PamD, there is now enough to warrant keeping. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Saints recognised by major churches are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 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 redirect to Kokborok#Kokborok script (Koloma). Consensus not to keep, and the redirect idea seems sensible and is not opposed. Sandstein 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kokborok script[edit]

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

While the script issues around Kokborok are documented in the main article as well as the article Script issues of Kokborok and touched on in Kokborok literature, this new article seems like a fork of the other articles. The intro section is effectively a duplication of what can be found in the other articles about history of the script. However the main concern in the section "Many Developed scripts for Kokborok" which is entirely unsourced and there is no indication whatsoever how notable those script variants are and to which degree there actually is a discussion about those scripts. Given the very political nature of the discussion, this strikes me as a WP:POVFORK with strong elements of WP:OR or even promotion by creating relevance for some proposals (specifically script variant 9). I appreciate this is a very fringe topic and the depth of the discussion may not be covered by sources widely accessible. Nevertheless (or especially because of this), we need to be extra careful about what is elevated to encyclopaedia contents. Therefore I recommend to delete this article and redirect the title to Script issues of Kokborok. It may also be worthwhile to add this complex of topics in the watchlist for Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from author's talk page:

Dear, sir I feel that deleting an article is bad discission, I am not pointing you wrong but as I told you before Kokborok is still under process, and many people are contributing in it. And Kokborok Script is like a platform where many can get engage, showcasing their ideas in developing Kokborok script and people who read this article also will know how far has this gone. And I am sure one day all the Tripuri community will come to a conclusion through this article. So I request you not to delete this article from Wikipedia, and please remove it from the nomination of deletion. Abelborok 11:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Abel Tiprasa: I appreciate your effort in creating the article. The lack of a script is well documented in some of the other articles about the Kokborok language and in external sources. However, Wikipedia is not a platform to debate and discuss a script, it is not a blog or social platform for the development of the Kokborok script. It is an encyclopaedia. As such, articles should reflect available information and not create information. If you seek to engage with other Kokborok speakers you should seek alternative platforms. Of course, when there is some kind of official agreement or there is sourced contents that can be added because it has been published elsewhere, a dedicated article may be warranted. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, userfy/draft also possibly. Oppose redirect. It seems that there are script systems for Kokborok that may pass GNG. However, present article has WP:ESSAY and WP:V issues - relying on other Wikipedia articles (not a valid source) and on a blogspot source (and it is not clear to me that the material is in whole there). Should this be recreated (or main-spaced) - it should be based on academic sources (at least in part - I will note that the images with sample scripts are informative).Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: this has actually been moved to draft before as here. The original inception of that article was an identical copy of that Blogspot article. The author then recreated a second article in main space, with some improved language. The question about the images is to which degree they may possibly be copyvios. If they are photos from books that have a reserved right, they are a violation. We just don't know for sure. Without reliable sources we also don't know if those hand written slides are "real" or made up contents. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the present article and sourcing are a no-go. Per my BEFORE - I do see some coverage of RS of various Kokborok scripts - and Script issues of Kokborok does not seem to cover the alternative scripts but rather the political debate. I can see the merit of an article on this topic(s) (particular script(s) of Kokborok) - however they would have to be sourced properly. I disagree the present article is a fork (as it actually describes scripts - which is not done in the other two). The WP:V issue is glaring.Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One more case of an article whose main weaknesses are its text and its creators. The article needs a serious improvement (especially in removing unsupported, personal work); and the author offers the weakest of defenses. Yet, the subject is clearly and evidently notable, a living language spoken by hundreds of thousands of people - and verifiable notability is how we decide comings and goings in the palace of culture:

- "Kokborok a raw nerve in Tripura's identity politics," Times of India, 7 February 2018

- Dept of Kokborok, Tripura University, India

- Kok Borok in the Ethnologue database

~~-The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changing vote to Delete per below. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: I'm not disputing the notability of the Kokborok language. The language is well covered by existing articles. The main concern with the article Kokborok script is that a script effectively does not exist. The writing system for the Kokborok language is Bengali or Latin script. The Ethnologue database you provide makes this point. This is also discussed in the existing articles (and touched on in the new one too). The movement for a dedicated Kokborok script is political which is somewhat aligned to Tripuri nationalism. Dedicated writing systems are proposed, yet as long as those proposals are not covered in reputable external sources, this contradicts verifiability and notability guidelines (for the script, whatever that is or may be) IMO.

Put differently, there's not such thing as "English script". We use Latin script. Similar concept. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Jake Brockman. I stand corrected. Mea culpa. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I haven't done any research into this, but purely from a WP:ATD point of view, this is discussed briefly in Kokborok#Kokborok script (Koloma), so a redirect there seems to make more sense than deletion. @Icewhiz: you were opposed to a redirect in your comment above, but consider if this is a better target than previously suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Kokborok#Kokborok script (Koloma) is a good redirect, as we would be promoting the view that Koloma is the script for this language while it seems there are (2? more?) competing scripts.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 16 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. – Joe (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lachi Prajapati[edit]

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

the subject has entry in some Golden Book of World Records but basically fails GNG.. Saqib (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, refs in the article are unreliable, google showing nothing. Szzuk (talk) 09:36, 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 keep. There is a clear consensus to keep. The option to merge can be further discussed on the talk page if desired. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Münster attack[edit]

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

I doubt that this event turns out to be notable per WP:EVENT. Given that reporting so far indicates that a terrorist / extremist background is unlikely, and that the death toll is low in comparison to other similar attacks, a lasting effect and persistent coverage are improbable. This leaves us with a WP:NOTNEWS situation. A mention in Vehicle-ramming attack#List of non-terrorist incidents with one or two good sources should suffice. Sandstein 07:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Vehicle-ramming attack#List of non-terrorist incidents. A tragedy for those involved, but there's no long lasting historical impact. This is Paul (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to the merge. There is no terrorist intent reported, sounds like just some nutjob, forgotten in a couple of days. 50.111.41.216 (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, the incident was horrific and had a great effect in Germany and in German cities. A simple search on the internet would reveal its notoriety. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:RAPID. Front page international news (e.g. - it is main item on Reuters at the moment (shame on them - edging out the Syrian gas attack!), pictured side item on main in CNN (they are running with the gas attack as the main))). Too soon to speculate on continuing coverage and motivations (though there have been "extremist right" ties floating around - e.g. [29] The public broadcaster ZDF suggested he had links with far-right extremists, but said he was not known to be one himself.Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously notable. Great media coverage. Social impact. Gabinho^>:) 12:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:RAPID--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: what is it with Germans and their deletion fantasies? This event is clearly relevant and notable. We have tons of articles like this in the English Wikipedia.--APS ^talk 12:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reported articles in newspapers on the other side of the planet Washington Post: Van plows into crowd in northern German city of Münster, killing at least 2, and the reality that attacks on random stranger in public places resulting in multiple deaths tend to draw WP:SIGCOV and have impact (like the forest of bollards now springing up in German cities) make this one a keeper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As this only happened yesterday it's no surprise it's still headline news. But what you have to ask yourself is, will it still be making the news next weekend? This is Paul (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

possibly not, but "still be making the news next weekend" is not the standard by which we gauge the notability of EVENTS such as the 2015 Graz attack, or December 2017 Melbourne car attack. The standard here is WP:NCRIME. Vehicle-ramming attacks in Germany are a recent phenomenon that have have been attracting ONGOING and SIGCOV. I suppose (fixed typo) that this may change if they become routine, but - thank heaven - they are still very far from ROUTINE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep per WP:RAPID. Based on the existing votes, there is not a snowball's chance in hell this will be deleted in the next week, regardless of the notability. I attempted to NAC this, but have reverted by request. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, once RAPID no longer applies, a merge discussion can happen on the talk page without an AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. I did not justify my "k" iVote on RAPID, but on the GEOSCOPE and nature of coverage. In my experience, merge discussions on topics about contested subjects can become a sort of stealth deletion. I think that it is better for the integrity of project to let this discussion play out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. There are some "Keep per RAPID, but possibly delete later" votes, and some "Keep per GNG (and keep later" votes. Both are keep votes as far as this discussion is concerned. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - Yes it’s in a lot of newspapers. Yes, a lot of people are affected. But, we’re not a newspaper. Adding to Vehicle-ramming attack is adequate. One hopes this will not be what this 1,200 year old city is remembered for. WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM WP:10YT O3000 (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as suggested by This is Paul. Such attacks have become fairly commonplace; we need more evidence that this one 1) meets GNG and NOTNEWS and 2) survives the test of time. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge What makes this article notable is that the nature of the event is similar to Islamic attacks. As it is not a politically motivated or religion based attack it is not of a category deserving of an entire entry to itself. It could be merged with a page dealing with suicide attacks in Europe or ramming attacks: a brief entry should suffice. To create a wiki entry for every murder in Europe would be a profitless task. The person that created this page was a bit too keen. The urge to instantly add an entry for every momentarily newsworthy event is not a good trend. Signed by Gavan 22:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:2D23:4758:3DCA:DC59:9BA1:5AC5 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there appears to have been no political or religious motive, this was still a major event. Many people were injured, it received international media coverage, severely disrupted the centre of a medium-sized city and appears to have been only one of two vehicle-ramming attacks to have occurred in Germany (the other being the 2016 Berlin attack). Jim Michael (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep since the article's subject is an event that is evidently, independently notable, per numerous sources. This is a developing story, the man said.-The Gnome (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all above as a notable event. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same rationale as User:E.M.Gregory. PvOberstein (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why was there even an attempt to delete it in the first place? On the third day, it is still top news in Germany, all over Germany (sometimes superior to the Syrian gas attacks), everyone is aware what happened, everyone is aware that fake news were spread and is debating how to fight hate speech, fake news, unsubstantiated rumours etc., and thus, the Münster attack will stay relevant. Also, Germans are still awaiting more details about Jens R. and they continue to trickle out. It has also revived the debate about Poller in inner cities, about security in general, about the Heimatminister Horst seehofer, etc. Incredibly relevant! --ObersterGenosse (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - large scale significant coverage, obviously notable and passes WP:GNG. The 2017 Times Square car crash was an intended terrorist attack either, yet it and this event are both notable due to the rarity of such automobile rampage incidents and the attention they revive. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of coverage world wide. Top news that day. Article is referenced with good refs. BabbaQ (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page should be kept because of the amount of anticipation the event recieved as a terriorist attack. Jibran1998 (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's already been several days' of coverage in International media, and likely more to come. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Berthier[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any evidence of notability or coverage beyond one sentence mentions that he founded Missionaries of the Holy Family, which does not even have a page of its own. Would suggest redirect if there was a page about the missionary, but there is not. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn -- thank you to the editors below who have looked harder than I did! New sources are quite sufficient. Admin please close. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for bringing him to my attention, it was interesting to learn about him. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a poor stub. but the founder of a Catholic order with 900 priests and is a candidate for canonisation certainly should be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong keep - If not, merge to Missionaries of La Salette; Bertier was a member, and he is mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia article about that group.[30][31]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the Berthier page with sources and the La Salette page to mention Berthier. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck weak from my !vote. I've found his entry in the New Catholic encyclpedia as well as other articles about him. He was often called Jean, Jan, or Johannes, and was the subject of a book[32] ~~and has an entry in the national encyclopedia of France.[33]~~ Here is his page in fr.wikipedia: fr:Jean Berthier. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Berthier is actually a candidate for canonization, we should at least be able to find his death date, and probably his birth year as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks to be notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Smmurphy's comment above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Waronker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, president of a non-notable real estate company. Also founded a very short-lived minor hockey league and had partial ownership in several of the teams. Only limited coverage in reliable sources. Previous deletion discussion ended in no consensus. Rusf10 (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Flibirigit (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG as the founder and commissioner of the WHA2, despite the article being undersouced. Flibirigit (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being that the WHA2 was only in existence for one year, it's barely notable itself.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It still meets notability guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the league is notable, the owner of the league isn't notable on their own because they own the league. SportingFlyer talk 02:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, being the owner of a sports club does not, by itself, assign Wiki-notability to a person.

Delete: The WHA2 meets notability guidelines, but no one's proposing deleting that article. This is the one up for discussion, and notability is not inherited, nor does any guideline grant presumptive notability to the heads of ephemeral low-minor leagues. Waronker just doesn't meet the "significant coverage" bar of the GNG. Ravenswing 18:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessperson who fails the WP:GNG. Being a litigant doesn't convey notability. SportingFlyer talk 18:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ran a news archive search on Proquest, and it shows detailed coverage of his career as a real estate developer going back to the early 90s. Large developments, seems to have started by building suburban subdivisions in New Jersey, more recently building large apartment complexes in Florida. In addition, of course, to the series of sports franchises he owned. As is so often the case, lack of access to powerful news archives inhibits editors for assessing notability and building articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Where are all these sources??? You only added one to the article. 2. These hockey teams aren't even notable themselves. His hockey league folded after one season.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a detailed, reported, open access story about him; Waronker severs ties with the Atlantic Coast Hockey League. Rusf10, do you have access to a news archive?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the teams are certainly notable, in fact, if you look at the links (always a good seat-of-the-pants indication of notability) you will see that their pages link to this page. I think we should keep and hope someone makes time to improve the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Orlando Business Journal is hardly a well-known publication. 2. "if you look at the links (always a good seat-of-the-pants indication of notability) you will see that their pages link to this page" Are you kidding me? What kind of circular logic is that? Because someone linked it to other pages, it must be notable? That's almost as bad as "someone created an article so it must be notable".--Rusf10 (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Business Journal. But, as I said, many articles in my Proquest search were from big city dailies in several states, covering the ins and outs of Waronker's real estate development career. In addition to coverage of his sports involvement and stuff like articles about charitable donations he and his spouse have made. I am somewhat offended that you seem unable to WP:AGF and accept that this material exists. And without taking it into account in some way, I fail to see how you can assess notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know in the past we've deleted articles about people whose only claim to notability was owning a minor league sports team. SportingFlyer talk 14:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that all owners of minor league teams automatically confers notability, only that there has been WP:SIGCOV of Warnonke's ownership of a series of such teams - and of a short-lived league. And of his business career as a real estate developer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This: [34] comment by Dream Focus in the previous AfD shows the problems I described earlier, with paywalled sources and the fact that he got more press a few years ago, and so may not have shows up well in Nom's WP:BEFORE search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY I did a modest improvement of his career as a developer, lots more sourcing out there. Coverage of his involvement with hockey ownership is massive (I did not expand the hockey coverage, but sources to do so certainly exist).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Borderline keep, I ran a search on Factiva, comes up with 7 articles on him, covering both his real estate stuff, and him discussing things about the hockey team. Albeit smaller titles like "The Knoxville News-Sentinel" "The Philadelphia Inquirer" and "The Florida Times-Union (KRTBN)",Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant coverage in independent sources are lacking. The coverage is mostly routine (""A DEVELOPER GOES BACK TO COURT OVER E. GREENWICH BOARD'S REFUSAL") and / or WP:SPIP ("NEW OWNER INTENDS TO KEEP SEALS IN TOWN"). Simply a non-notable individual; the article has originated as a promotional CV and the current state is not suggestive of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A BLP, so a second relist is acceptable here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article reads like an ad for the person. The subject of the article is also lacking GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme caution, possibly with a stake through the heart. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORTS, and gods' admonition to be humble. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find coverage that I believe is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The coverage all seems to be local and pretty typical for what you'd expect from a minor league sports owner and/or a real estate developer. Papaursa (talk) 19:26, 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) 04:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violence, dominance and stereotypes in masculinity[edit]

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

Opinion essay per WP:NOTESSAY created as a student project, which is little more than a commentary on the existing article toxic masculinity, building up to a pamphleteering conclusion asking "The pressing question is, what do we do about it? How can we seek to solve these concerns in the workplace and in everyday life?" The original article toxic masculinity has itself been the subject of some debate for over a year, so when I tried to propose a merge at Talk:Toxic masculinity#Proposed merge with Violence, Dominance and Stereotypes in Masculinity, the consensus was that this article should go to AFD. It was proposed for deletion on similar grounds by User:El cid, el campeador on 29 March. The article creator responded by de-prodding, adding a lot more information and WP: Reliable sources, but also straying repeatedly into WP:Synthesis. Some of those sources might be useful in improving toxic masculinity, but aside from that I can see little to no article content worth salvaging. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the reasons above, it's awful. Seems to be part of a student project going on here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Michigan/Social_Inequality_-_Winter_2018_(Winter_2018) - which is also affecting other articles. --hippo43 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Tangentially, deletion might give happy birth to a new project, about male dominance in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not surprised this was nominated for AfD over the suggested merge. WP:NPOV is clearly something that happens to other people. As noted, some of the refs would be good for the base article, but there isn't a distinct section here that is worth specific preserving. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to critique some poor student's work, but this is an ordinary essay, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 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 Speedy Delete. WP:G3 by Acroterion. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Farina[edit]

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

unref blp Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G3 as a total hoax. No one of that name drafted in 1990, not on baseball-reference at all. SportingFlyer talk 07:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer. This appears to be a hoax. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 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 speedy delete. Hoax Acroterion (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Dohr (baseball)[edit]

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

unref blp Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G3. This appears to be a total hoax - I can't find any minor leaguer with that name, the Beloit Snappers 2011 did not list him as a coach, nor did Kane County, and Joe Mauer caught the whole game for his supposed MLB game here: [35] Joe Mauer caught the whole game, and the Twins didn't make any positional substitutions. SportingFlyer talk 07:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer. This appears to be a hoax. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is a hoax. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 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. – Joe (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Cornwall[edit]

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

Defunct non-notable publication; somewhat spammy article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Disclaimer: I cannot be negatively biased since I've never been to Cornwall. -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a stub for 10 years, 2 refs saying nothing and google the same. They were guides for restaurants made by a local couple, one half of the couple died, rip. Szzuk (talk) 17:53, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Richards (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Simione001 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify he's WP:TOOSOON as he's made the teamsheet for Adelaide United and could have been substituted at any time, but never appeared in an A-League game. Unfortunately the season ended recently and the article's easily recreatable, so I'm absolutely fine with a delete and recreate. SportingFlyer talk 07:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He is third choice. Simione001 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:TOOSOON and for pete's sakes. Albert, are football players' agents faster than the speed of light? -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 9 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) 07:52, 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 delete. Sandstein 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Sawaguchi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre.

First AfD closed as "Keep" in 2006. The arguments included: Japanese Amazon currently still lists 27 DVD, 24 Videos, and 4 photo-books and 290,000 Google hits, none of which is convincing. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards, fails Pornbio & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fails WP:PORNBIO flat out. -The Gnome (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am glad to see the size of the Japanese pornographic actresses category has now falled below 100 but it is still unreasonably large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absent appropriate review of the subject's career outside pornography. Despite what is stated by the nominator, the subject has received (rather brief) coverage in the New York Times, performed at the Knitting Factory, and reportedly appeared extensively on mainstream Japanese TV. No notability has been demonstrated as a porn performer, of course, and much of the existing content should be pruned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged "coverage" in The New York Times is nothing more than a mention in the "listing by critics of The Times of new or noteworthy pop and jazz concerts in the New York metropolitan region this weekend." They denote "highly recommended concerts" with an asterisk; their concert does not even get that. (It's all here.) The rest of the sources, as listed in the contested article, mostly amount to nothing more than porn promos. You want porn? Fails WP:PORNBIO. You want singer/musician/artist? Fails WP:NARTIST. What can we do? -The Gnome (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC lists international touring as a factor in assessing noyability, and being signed to a notable label is also an indication of notability, And having an appearance cited by the NY Times as being particularly noteworthy, in a "selective listing" is also certainly an indication of notability. Wikipedia iscertainly infested with fetishized coverage of Japanese porn performers, but Japanese porn actresses are also much more likely than their American counterparts to be notable due to work in other fields in the entertainment industry. ("More likely" here equates to a nontrivial level, not to "very likely".) This calls for a less superficial of sources, particularly Japanese-language sources.Unfortunately, sources like the Village Voice and Downbeat, which often covered Knitting Factory performers, don't have archives online covering the time period involved (sadly, the Voice's current ownership regime has gutted their online archives). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indicators of notability do not count for much in the absence of reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. None have been presented in the course of this AfD and I don't believe they exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfowitz, I'm with you, especially about the idiots who gutted the archives (grr!), but where's the notability? Japanese porn people do try to go mainstream, perhaps more so than their western counterparts, but we still need dedicated and extensive coverage in sources, per rules. The subject simply does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:MUSICBIO. Mentions in lists (even in major media) of upcoming events do not, on their own, notability make. If the "gutting of the online archives" is what denies the subject its due, then so be it; them's the rules. -The Gnome (talk) 06:36, 16 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. – Joe (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Vega (actress)[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No notable contributions to the genre. The award listed "Hot d'Or Award winner - Best French Female Performer" is not significant; the rest are nominations. In any case, without WP:SIGCOV this article is not viable, as has been the consensus at PORNBIO AfDs in the past year or so. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Nat965 (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable awards, fails Pornbio & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fails WP:PORNBIO décidément. -The Gnome (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have 42 articles on French pornographic film actresses and one on a French woman judge. Something is wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 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 keep. Several commenters have suggested that this topic is notable if the content were reworked, replaced with improved content, or split into different articles, and these arguments against deletion have been confusingly put beside bolded "delete" !votes. As I note that one of the participants has already drafted replacements based on this content, I judge that not only is there not consensus to delete, there is consensus to keep in some form. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo products[edit]

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

Badly formatted, mostly unsourced, and redundant with all of the Nintendo console game pages that list the same games. I attempted to cleanup the article earlier (the tags on there date back to 2010, so this as been an issue for nearly a decade), but quickly found out that I couldn't find an ideal way to do so and gave up. If the list isn't outright deleted or redirected, then at least the discussion here will hopefully find a way to improve it enough to prevent that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - There currently is no comprehensive overview listing games published by Nintendo. Other pages list all games on the respective video game platforms, not just those by Nintendo. Those pages often have their own issues, either they are incomplete, or they have formatting issues and thus do not let you easily display all games published by Nintendo. Somebody looking for titles published by Nintendo doesn't want to use "STRG+F" on dozens of different pages to find what he's looking for, especially when those pages do not take regional publishing efforts into account, which this page does. At the same time, those pages have no sources at all, whereas sources are continually implemented on this page. We already cleaned up the sections from GameCube till Switch, and a similar cleanup is still progressing for the 3DS section. It's true that the other sections still require a bit more work. Instead of just deleting the article, like you did, you could help us improving it by further eliminating the Western bias and inconsistent organisation in the NES to N64 sections, or by adding additional sources. The template for these improvements is given in the Wii/GameCube sections. ~ DanielFreed ^(talk) 10:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory for this purpose. "Ease of use", is not a valid keep argument. See WP:ITSUSEFUL Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From your link: ""usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." Given that we are talking about one of the largest video game companies, there is a natural interest in seeing what this company produced and provide an overview linking to specific product pages. Given that we have similar lists for basically any other relevant video game company (Activision, Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Sony, etc.), it would be very strange to omit such a list for Nintendo, or to simply link to other pages listing all games on the system. The aim of this specific page is to provide an overview of all Nintendo products while also providing selected other information, something which those general console lists fail at. ~ DanielFreed ^(talk)) 11:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you impersonating my signature? Aren't there guidelines against this? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I just used it as a template and copy/pasted it for this discussion to show who made the comment (i.e. I needed it to add my name and the date). I just changed the colour code now. Honestly didn't know you personalised it. Feel free to change my signature in this discussion if you are still unhappy with it. Seeing now there's an easier way to add signatures by using four ~. DanielFreed (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY, fails WP:LISTN (No sources are talking about all of this at once as a single group), and redundant to more discrete and specific lists that we already have. -- ferret (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"No sources are talking about all of this at once as a single group" - There are quite a few articles which do. Either articles talking about the company as a whole, or articles talking about the best games produced by Nintendo, or other articles looking at Nintendo's products over the years. Please check at your link especially this section: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". This list certainly meets the notability criterion, especially given that there are similar lists for most other relevant gaming companies for which there aren't articles akin to the aforementioned. ~ DanielFreed ^(talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also check (7) on your link: "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." In fact, those are very common on here, and given the company we are talking here, WP:LISTN is no issue.DanielFreed (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm honestly baffled by the delete votes on this. Every single video game company with an article on Wikipedia has a listing of their works, and if the list is too large to be fit within the company's own article (as is obviously the case with Nintendo), it's split off into an article of its own. We do the exact same thing with articles on authors, comic book publishers, film production companies, musicians, etc. It's a natural and logical thing to do. I've never seen anyone object to this practice, and if there's a reason why an exception should be made for Nintendo, no one has given it yet.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You give a keep vote but don't suggest how we fix it in its current state (part of the reason I nominated it). Those other "company product lists" are slightly different, as they are way better formatted and more clear in its direction (video games only, such as List of Square Enix video games) How about we make a List of Nintendo franchises page and just list by series instead of each individual game? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We already had such a list, which was fused with this article as it provides more in-depth information. It's also difficult to determine 'Nintendo franchises'. Would you still list Bayonetta? Project Zero? How about Pokemon, is that a Nintendo franchise when it's a separate company in which Nintendo just holds a stake? Also, solutions to improve this article are basically named at the start of the article as well as on the Discussion page of the article.DanielFreed (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "more in-depth information" is not an improvement when it just looks like somebody dumped a variety of different tables and lists into the page without any effort of cleaning it up, which is my whole issue with it. As for what would count as Nintendo franchise, wouldn't that same question apply here? Why are Mega Man games listed on the page here when it's a Capcom property? Also, those improvement tags are neatly a decade old, which is not something you should be pointing out as an argument, as it's not a good thing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just because the tags have been there since 2010, that doesn't mean that nothing has been done about the issues since then. It was only last year that tables were created for most sections, even though they have yet to be finished for the NES-N64 sections. But if you look at the GameCube to Switch sections, the issues named in the tags have been resolved already. You may really want to take a look at the Discussion page to see what the current work-to-do list looks like. Also, Mega Man is by definition of the article scope in the list as the NES version was a Nintendo product in Europe. Of course, this should have been clarified by the author through some note. All in all, this is nothing that cannot be improved, and is just in line with similar lists for Square Enix, Sony, or Microsoft.DanielFreed (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dissident93, please read WP:NOTCLEANUP.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nintendo#Products, largely per WP:TNT. There are clearly some sub-sections that would be reasonable stand-alone lists, but as a whole this is indiscriminate and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate on why such a list fails those criteria for Nintendo, yet doesn't fail the criteria for all other video game companies which feature a similar list.DanielFreed (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - See other stuff exists. This is not a valid argument to keep. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Check the link you posted: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Also from the article you linked: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." Points referring to notability policies and guidelines have also already been mentioned above. Ideally a discussion on the Talk page would have preceded the discussion about a deletion, as I don't really see how else you would want to structure the page nor do I see it 'beyond repair'. It obviously requires some work. DanielFreed (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Examples? There's no List of Sony products or List of Atari products or List of Sega products. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are, though under a slightly different title: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atari_SA_video_games and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_Interactive_Entertainment_video_games, or for EA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electronic_Arts_games, and Ubisoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubisoft_games. There's also a list of THQ products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_THQ_games, a list of products by Rare Ltd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_developed_by_Rare, a list for Activision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Activision_video_games, and a list for Namco Bandai titles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bandai_Namco_video_games. Or is your point that you only want to restrict it to video games and remove the references to Nintendo's toys? That would be a relatively small change compared to what is suggested here, which is deleting the page as a whole because the games are listed elsewhere.DanielFreed (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - And all of those are listed by publisher, this list is just a (very incomplete) collection of any game released on a Nintendo platform. It should either be trimmed to be Nintendo-published only games, or deleted/redirected for being way too broad of a scope. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure if you've taken a look at what this page actually is. The first sentence on the page basically describes it: "This is a list of products published by Nintendo". Thus it's obviously not a page that is supposed to show any game released on a Nintendo platform, nor is there currently any indication that it attempts to be that. Please really take a look at the page as well as the Talk page. Perhaps you want to suggest the use of a different title instead of the deletion of the page? DanielFreed (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yeah, it was immediately clear to me upon looking at the article that it covers products published by Nintendo, not all games on Nintendo platforms.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Is this supposed to be an argument? Changing the page title does nothing, as the page is still an indiscriminate collection of information in concept, because it wants to list every single game (and product) ever released on a Nintendo platform on a single page. It either needs a major cleanup to only go with Nintendo-published/owned games+products, or become a disambuation page for the list of Nintendo games on PLATFORM articles. I don't see any other option that would be better than these two, and both of you who support to keep the page have yet to offer a solid suggestion other than "similar articles exists" (which I pointed out that is not really the case, as they differ in scope). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, I say this for the third time now, please take a look at what this page is as you seemingly have no clear idea about it at the moment. I am not sure if it makes much sense to continue discussing as you still insist that it "it wants to list every single game (and product) ever released on a Nintendo platform on a single page", which clearly is not the case. You suggest it "needs a major cleanup to only go with Nintendo-published/owned games+products" - but it already is exactly that. Nobody disputes, however, that it does need a major cleanup to sort the NES/SNES/N64 as well as the handheld sections. But, and here I say it again, had you taken a look at the Talk page, then you would have seen that this has already been noticed and is starting to get tackled. Please excuse me if I repeat myself, but I'd strongly encourage you to take a look at the page first before continuing this discussion because it's becoming very evident that you haven't done that yet. Please also check my the comments in this discussion. My previous comment, to which you just replied, should have made it pretty clear that it's not a page "to list every single game (and product) ever released on a Nintendo platform". DanielFreed (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either this should deleted or completely reworked (in which case, it should probably still be TNT'd). I love the idea of a list of non-video game Nintendo products, and don't understand why this list includes an indiscriminate collection of video games. List of Nintendo video games or List of Nintendo franchises would be much better titles for such an article anyway. I expected this list to consist of physical products, such as toys and hardware, not software. ~Mable (chat) 08:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on something like this? User:Maplestrip/List of Nintendo products ~Mable (chat) 08:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate why you think it's a list which "includes an indiscriminate collection of video games", because it obviously is just a list of video games published by Nintendo. Also, from what I see, the page was renamed from "List of video games published by Nintendo" to the current title at some point, probably to also include the toys which aren't video games (as you can see on the previous deletion discussion which is linked on the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_video_games_published_by_Nintendo). Even if you wanted to rename the article again, there's no need for a full deletion as the information listed at this point is still a great foundation, it just needs better formatting. It's not like any other games or a different set of games would be listed if the page was created from scratch, nor would there be a better option than to sort the games by release date and platform. DanielFreed (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps List of video games published by Nintendo and List of Nintendo products should be split? In such case, I think the former should use subsections based on something other than console. I see a lot of options to re-use aspects of this list, but as it stands now it simply doesn't work. ~Mable (chat) 10:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could be split, but that would only affect the small first section. Where exactly do you see the issue in sorting the games by game system though, why exactly do you think "it simply doesn't work"? From your reply I understand that you do not want a single large list of all games either. So what would be the options for subsections which you would suggest? DanielFreed (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I tried to use a different set-up for such a list, but I was unable to figure anything out that would work better. (See this for what I had in mind). I do think the list should be split into two, and I now agree that something like this would work. I'm going to post my two drafts on the article's talk page, because it's probably too confusing right now. ~Mable (chat) 14:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least refactor into appropriate lists A complete list of all products across all markets is clearly not acceptable per WP:NOT, but a list of the video game consoles they developed , and the list of first-party games they developed across platforms, also are reasonable separate lists. --Masem (t) 14:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split or keep - I think the article should be split into separate articles of a more manageable size, but barring that, I think the article should be kept, as combining this article with something else would make the Nintendo article absolutely humongous. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split - The article contains valuable information as a list of Nintendo games, but it is way too large of a page to manage. The organization is highly inconsistent, with some game sections being divided into tables and others being freely distributed lists. The page will only continue to get incredibly large with Nintendo's increasing amount of game releases. However, this page is very useful as an archive of a list of overall Nintendo games. If the article is split, the information will be easier to manage and therefore easier to read as well. User:TheAwesome21 —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I came very close to closing this as a no consensus, but I will give it another week and see if we can reach something resembling consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split - Mable created two drafts in their userspace to replace the current list. These are:
- User:Maplestrip/List of Nintendo products
- User:Maplestrip/List of video games published by Nintendo

I think such a split would reduce the scope of the current list, even though the main issues the current list has would be moved to 'List of video games published by Nintendo'.DanielFreed (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note duplicate !vote czar 03:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the purpose to the split products list. Even if it were tightened to hardware (exclude toys), what purpose does it serve and what sources cover Nintendo hardware/physical products as a group that shouldn't simply be covered in the appropriate section of the Nintendo parent article? As for the other, the distinction of being published by Nintendo is so vague as to be meaningless, which is no wonder why it isn't covered as a set in sources. Lists of Nintendo games and Nintendo video game consoles should together be sufficient for the purposes of listing Nintendo's products. No secondary sources worth merging. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 03:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- These points have all been mostly covered in the previous discussion. First, there's absolutely no vagueness in what games Nintendo has published. Second, because of the position of Nintendo in the video game market there are more than enough sources which cover their games as a set. Such lists of creative works exist for pretty much for all notable (and even less notable) video game firms, and are explicitly permitted as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Lists of Nintendo games is for all games on Nintendo platforms, not just for those by Nintendo.DanielFreed (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they haven't. Re: vagueness of publisher status, take any random game from the latter half of the proposed split list. What do sources have to say about the relation between James Bond 007 (1998 video game) and any of the games surrounding it in that list? Re: "more than enough sources which cover their games as a set"—ya, which is why we have lists for Nintendo-developed games. If you hold that Nintendo-published is its own meaningful designation, now is the time where you show those sources that show that specific set. Lists of Nintendo games already covers the subset of Nintendo-developed games, as Nintendo did not publish for non-Nintendo platforms. It would be duplicative to spin out a separate, single list. (Also, a single list would be unwieldy and need to be subdivided anyway.) czar 13:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a list of Nintendo-developed games as that is not really identifiable. Is a game like Hey! Pikmin Nintendo-developed or developed by a third party? Same for games such as Steel Diver, Tank Troopers or Metroid Prime 4. That's why there is a list of Nintendo-published games. Same for most other major publishers. To your other question: What do sources have to say about the relation between James Bond 007 and other Nintendo games on that list? - They unsurprisingly go on to talk about Nintendo's titles. Your argument that it would be duplicative is also not very sound: shall we remove the Beatles discography because we have lists for albums released in the years 1970-1980?DanielFreed (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a list of Nintendo-developed games

I just explained how we do—developers are sortable in the Lists of Nintendo games—and I also explained why it doesn't make sense to split out some super list from those separate lists. Your Beatles question is "other stuff"—if sources warrant separate treatment, then sure. But this AfD is about Nintendo products as a set and the onus for sourcing the Nintendo-published list is on you and those who assert that sources treat Nintendo-published games as a set. If you have sources, yesterday is when you show them. czar 16:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, you haven't really explained why it doesn't make sense to split off Nintendo games from that list so far. Also, it certainly is not "other stuff" when it was to show that simply saying "it's duplicative" is not an argument. And major gaming platforms, such as IGN (http://www.ign.com/articles/the-top-125-nintendo-games-of-all-time) and Kotaku (https://kotaku.com/my-favorite-nintendo-is-weird-nintendo-1822460818), or non-gaming platforms such as Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/nintendo-switch-vs-ps4-xbox-one-2017-11?op=1&r=US&IR=T) treat Nintendo-published games as a set.DanielFreed (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try the section that mentions the word "unwieldy" above. I believe I've been clear on all above points. If you have an issue with a Beatles list, feel free to spin out a separate discussion. Your IGN link refers to games on Nintendo's platforms, just as there are equivalents for the PlayStation and Xbox platforms. (The IGN even lists the three points of inclusion criteria.) Can't even say it better...

Nintendo merely publishing a game that was developed by a third party does not make it eligible - for a game to be considered a "Nintendo game" in our eyes, Nintendo has to have had a hand in the development process itself.

The Kotaku or Business Insider sources do not cover Nintendo-published games as a set either, so not sure what you're reading there. I'm familiar with the sourcing. I think IGN's summary is the common perception, and it lends to organizing lists by developer and not by publisher. czar 20:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I have an issue with the Beatles list, I only said that your point that it's duplicative is not a very strong argument against this list here. Please also check the IGN link again, it's not as you're claiming about games on Nintendo's platforms in general, it's essentially about Nintendo-developed games and games using Nintendo IPs (which essentially boils down to Nintendo-published titles). I'm not sure if you checked the Kotaku and Business Insider links, but they essentially also talk about games published by Nintendo when referring to 'Nintendo games' - not just games developed by Nintendo. Games such as Hey! Pikmin, Tank Troopers, Bayonetta 2, Devil's Third, Pocket Card Jockey etc. are typically considered to be "Nintendo games", despite being either co-developed by third party developers, entirely developed by third party developers, or only being published by Nintendo in some regions and not others. Same is true for other publishers, which is why these lists are usually organised by publisher and not by developer here on Wikipedia. There'd need to be a good argument for why this should be different all of a sudden.DanielFreed (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subset of "Nintendo-published games" is unwieldy and filled with all sorts of minor entries that we will struggle to even confirm as Nintendo-published (already visible in the Mable-split list linked above). The subset of "Nintendo-developed-or-had-a-hand-in" is also unwieldy but in a different way, hence why IGN had to set a list of caveats. The question of how to sensibly display that information is already covered within Lists of Nintendo games, in which games developed, published, or helped by Nintendo are listed in totality with their peers. these lists are usually organised by publisher and not by developer here on Wikipedia This isn't true. We typically list all items that would count as productions of the subject, but not when the list is hundreds of items... The chaos in your developed+published lists linked above shows why. Hence the question is what form presents the information best, and... back to my original points. Ya, I read the links and I already said that they were called "Nintendo games" because they were on a Nintendo platform, not because Nintendo published them. The "split" !vote is meaningless because the actual work here is deciding the content of the split. And if the intent is to separate into games and hardware, my original comment already linked where those lists already exist, which is why I have continued to hold that the "products" list under discussion is redundant. I don't think your examples are persuading and I can't say anything more to you that wouldn't repeat myself, so I think I'm done here. czar 22:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"we will struggle to even confirm as Nintendo-published (already visible in the Mable-split list linked above)" -> That's not really true. It's easily determinable whether a game is published by Nintendo or not, while it's not easily determinable whether Nintendo developed a game. "these lists are usually organised by publisher and not by developer here on Wikipedia This isn't true. We typically list all items that would count as productions of the subject, but not when the list is hundreds of items..." -> Please find the links to lists of games published by other companies which I posted above, you'll easily see it's not true what you are saying. "Ya, I read the links and I already said that they were called "Nintendo games" because they were on a Nintendo platform, not because Nintendo published them." -> Please read the links again, they are not about games published on a Nintendo platform, they are about 'games from Nintendo' - which is mainly seen as 'games published by Nintendo' as you will also see from the examples named (which is for example shown as the Kotaku article even mentions Pocket Card Jockey, a game which was only published by Nintendo outside of Japan). "I don't think your examples are persuading and I can't say anything more to you that wouldn't repeat myself, so I think I'm done here." -> The problem seems to be that you equate "Nintendo games" to "games on a Nintendo platform", which this isn't really about, and which is why this list is absolutely not redundant as it provides an overview of the creative works of a major gaming company and thus is also the topic of independent sources - even if they use the less precise term "Nintendo games" to refer to "Nintendo-published games".DanielFreed (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't see the difficulty in ascertaining a game's publisher. I come across sources establishing that information all the time, though I'll admit I usually don't think to add them to the relevant list articles. More important, as interesting as the above discussion was, I still don't understand why we would want to specifically exclude Nintendo from having a list of their published games. And having been a frequenter of the games-related articles and talk pages for a while now, I'm certainly not convinced that there's a sentiment that all lists of games published by specific companies should be eliminated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. The article as it stands is rubbish, but for an outside reader who is only vaguely aware of video games, an list that briefly summarises the NES, GameBoy, SNES, Wii etc is a perfectly acceptable topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split out individual articles & turn this page into a "list of lists" Content is notable but article is unwieldy. Splitting out each individual list and leaving a barebones article with a list of lists and lots of "main page" templates will be more useful.
Main article: List of Nintendo Entertainment System products
. With whole pages decided to each console, you could then have sections for different types of products like games, feelies, hand-held accessories etc.--Coin945 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC) --Coin945 (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 8, with no obligation to wait another whole week before reclosing by an admin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't a directory. Optionally recreate as a list of lists. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 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 redirect to Five Boro Bike Tour. – Joe (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bike New York[edit]

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

As much as I'm a fan of everything related to cycling in NYC, this fails WP:NCORP. After 11 years of existing as a stub, it still has zero references. I did some searching on my own. The best I found were [36] and [37], both of which are just directory listings which don't get us WP:N. I'm actually hoping somebody can find some good sources, and then I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Five Boro Bike Tour, the notable bicycling event that this group has operated for over 40 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge deletion would not be an aprripriate outcome. FloridaArmy (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. FWIW, I used to be a volunteer for the 5 Boro Bike Ride. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tamika Scott[edit]

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

Her fame is tied up in the group Xscape (band), with no other activity described. Published sources that mention her do so in passing, as part of the group. Binksternet (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xscape (group), where there is a (poor and unsourced) subsection on her. --Michig (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xscape (group) – she's completely non-notable outside of the group. Richard3120 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, redirect is the best option. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've improved her article somewhat, though it should be tagged for further cleanup. Although the article needs attention, I think it's well demonstrated that she is notable enough for her own article. In addition to all her telvision performances in the band, she's appeared on television as herself multiple times. Bravo followed her and the band members in a four-part documentary series. According to WP:ENTERTAINER, she is notable for having "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Additionally, there is quite a bit of discussion regarding aspects of her personal life and relationships that don't have anything to do with Xscape. Therefore, she also passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Public interest in her personal life indicates she's notable as an individual in addition to as a band member. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page Tamika is not just known for being in the group Xscape. She is also an actress having appeared in numerous stage plays and worked alongside Tyler Perry. Also she has written music for numerous films and has made appearances in numerous reality TV shows as well as appearing in her own show. Additionally she owns her own record label and company and as Lonehexagon had mentioned, " Therefore, she also passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Public interest in her personal life indicates she's notable as an individual in addition to as a band member." Xscapefan (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(What Is) Love?[edit]

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

Charted 121 in South Korea and 33 in Spain so not a strong WP:NSONG candidate. Not much reliable, independent coverage in secondary sources. AIRcorn (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference review:

rap up Very short article about it being leaked.
Chron Part sentence mention in album review.
Digital Spy Sentence mention (along with 3 other album songs) in album review.
Billboard Three sentences in quite detailed album review.
Rap up Same as above
Idolator About leak of sequel single
Popcrush About the sequel song
Everything else is primary (iTunes, booklet etc) AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's marginal, but there's enough there in terms of references/sourcing/charting to make me think it passes WP:NSONG. SportingFlyer talk 02:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NSONG. A commendable effort by fans or management of Ms Lopez but the sources bring the lie to the whole affair. (What Is) Notability? What the song does not have. -The Gnome (talk) 10:05, 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. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2017 Buckingham Palace incident

Articles for deletion/Buckingham Palace incident

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

The previous discussion was closed as "no consensus", mainly because of RAPID arguments. Fortunately, RAPID no longer applies, but NOTNEWS has never been more apparent. The novel nature of 2017's most inept "terrorist" made for a "good story", but left us with no impact. An inept editor will claim the location and unrelated attacks around the same time brings notability by ignoring NOTINHERITED. An inept editor will observe "ongoing coverage" by ignoring its routine nature and the gaps between this so-called "ongoing coverage". And, of course, the inept editor will ignore our notability guidelines for events, chiefly its warning of recentism bias and: A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. I have confidence, however, that the majority of editors voting here are not nearly as inept as this "terrorist". TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, the short mention at List of terrorist incidents in August 2017 is really all that's necessary here. Ambivalent on whether it should stay around as a redirect; there don't seem to be any other incidents or attacks involving Buckingham Palace but it's not particularly high-traffic. ansh 666 01:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor incident that resulted in three minor injuries and no deaths. I am sure that there have been many such "incidents" of various types at Buckingham Palace in the past couple of centuries. No objection to mentioning it in a list article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:GNG.WP:NEWS doesn't apply as it not similar to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities".--Shrike (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the source from January 15 [38]--Shrike (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To say NOTNEWS does not apply to crimes when our notability guidelines for events begs to differ is a clear case of ignoring a legitimate rationale.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrong interpretation of policy is almost never gained a consesenus so yes its WP:IDHT--Shrike (talk) 08:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for you Shrike, the times they are a-changin'.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per ongoing, diverse, international coverage of this rather unusual event (an Uber driver who allegedly can't navigate and uses a samurai sword for an alleged terror plot). Amply meets WP:NCRIME. Calling an attempted sword attack by an Uber driver routine is bizarre. Routine applies to " routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." - which this is not.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Let's focus on "attempted" for a second. What's bizarre is your use of the word "attempted," since no attempt was ever made. The word insidiously makes this a bigger event than it (happily) was. See, according to all sources, the apprehended person was arrested by the police in his car before he had the chance to do anything. Kudos to the police for being vigilant and engaged; boo hiss to Wikipedia editors who use words as Humpty Dumpty does. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is coverage - which in this case we have - in depth, wide - even international coverage. As for your stmt "bizarre is your use of the word "attempted," since no attempt was ever made." - this is contradicted by WP:RS - An Uber driver who allegedly injured police officers with a sword outside Buckingham Palace has denied terror offences.[39] (not that it matters one iota - as coverage - diverse, indepth, and wide SIGCOV is key for event notability).Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the article is going to stay up alright, I've no illusions about this. And, perhaps, those who believe it should be kept up might have valid reasons. The discussion here, as far as I'm concerned is pure damage control, against yet another instance of casual and frivolous inaccuracy, sprinkled with sleazy hyperbole. For your information, the charges about the injuries to the police are distinct and separate from the charges about "preparing to commit a terrorist act." According to the prosecution, the former were actually committed, and the latter were being "prepared" to be committed. But who cares, right? -The Gnome (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete A flurry of coverage in August for this News of the Weird item, a couple of references in the next "crazy person at the palace" story in December, and then a few local stories in January as the first round of the court case cranked in. Lasting interest? Apparently not. Another WP:NOTNEWS isolated incident. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, There are so many sources on page that you may have missed this X marks the self essay in the London Review of Books in which novelist Thomas Jones uses the incident as teh lede for a review of a book about satnav fail. The essay opens "In August, a man with a sword was arrested near Buckingham Palace on suspicion of preparing to commit an act of terrorism. Westminster Magistrates Court heard that the man, an Uber driver from Luton, had intended to go to Windsor Castle but his satnav directed him to a pub called The Windsor Castle instead. Without stopping for a drink, he drove on to Buckingham Palace. It isn’t clear if he was still relying on the satnav for the final stage of his journey, or whether rage at the mistake was a motivating factor in his alleged offence. Three police officers were said to have received minor injuries; presumably he hadn’t stopped to ask them for directions." My point is that this inept, sword-wielding, wannabe jihadi caught a good deal of attention as a poster child for incompetent absurdity - not only as a sort of satire of inept jihad, but because he was an Uber driver who couldn't use satnav.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a tabloid for every incompetent wannabe terrorist. You have to do more than brandish a sword, like Richard Reed, the "Shoe Bomber". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction, he didn't 'brandish' a sword, he allegedly reached for it in the passenger footwell when clallenged by 3 police, and was immediately overcome by them. Even less dramatic than 'brandishing a sword'. Pincrete (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was planning to brandish it. -The Gnome (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"An Uber driver who allegedly injured police officers with a sword outside Buckingham Palace has denied terror offences."[40]. Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that perp drove his car at a police van stationed in the restricted zone at the Palace. Driving into that security zone is illegal, they arrest people for doing that at the house of the head of state in pretty much every country, which is why they had moved to arrest him before he picked up the sword or started injuring officers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source (WSJ) actually refers to "A restricted area" not "THE restricted zone". Driving into such an area is a relatively trivial traffic offence. Anyone who knows Central London would know that almost all of it is 'restricted' to one degree or another, UK sources don't even mention this fact since it is so trivial. Pincrete (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The defendant injured police officers while he was being arrested. That, in itself, does not constitute a terrorist offense; it's attempted grievous bodily harm to a police officer and resisting arrest. Why aren't more Wiki editors sticklers for accuracy? -The Gnome (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because editors follow WP:RS - as the defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge of preparing to commit an act of terrorism on or before the incident on 25 August.[41].Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have nothing to worry about. No one is going to accuse you of accuracy. Preparing to commit an illegal act (robbery, murder, etc) is not the same thing as attempting an illegal act. Which is precisely what I called you up on. The rest is irrelevant. I could give you a few refs myself that indicate the distinction but that'd be a waste, so, take care now. -The Gnome (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Herostratus' sake. And what a title! Does that incident really qualify as the Buckingham Palace incident? (I thought it'd be about Prince Philip protesting the corgis' use of his toilet.) -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per WP:SIGCOV; but move to Buckingham Palace sword attack as per common name. Perp leaves a suicide martyrdom note for his family, "Tell everyone that I love them and that they should struggle against the enemies of Allah with their lives and their property,... The queen and her soldiers will all be in the hellfire.”, drives to royal palace, shouts Allahu Akbar! and attempts to attack security officers with sword. Coverage has been ONGOING since he drove to the wrong palace last August, and and it includes INDEPTH coverage in major media. Also: it is dysfunctional to bring an attack that happened almost a year ago to AfD shortly before the trial gets underway; the charge is: preparing to commit an act of terrorism. Readers do expect us to have pages on about trials that are in the news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of holes in this. How does SIGCOV, a guideline, superseded NOT, a policy (hint: it doesn't)? How are the suspect's suicide note and the phrase "Allahu Akbar" (bolded for dramatic effect) parts of a policy-based rationale? Where does it say it is "dysfunctional" and I must wait for the routine report announcing the conclusion of a trial? And where does it say readers expect us to report on this like the news instead of them reading...the news?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sword attacks (or terrorist attacks) are not a routine news occurrence in the UK. In fact, they have been rather non existent in the 21st and 20th centuries (Jack Churchill wielding his sword overseas for the most part). Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need not bother about the forensics for "sword attacks" because, well, the incident was not about a sword attack. This is that the police are saying, but I'm game if someone knows better. The arrested individual did not have time to do anything, if he indeed intended to do something. (The trial is precisely about that. My opinion is that he would certainly attempt something but Wikipedia treats personal opinions like crap.) Plus, you might want to review what you wrote about terrorist attacks in the 20th century before I go World War One on you. You want swords, I can give you swords. You want terrorist attacks? Oh, come on now. And let's not start about state-sponsored terrorism.-The Gnome (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False-grounds-for-defense alert. Readers and users of Wikipedia do not and should not expect Wikipedia to provide news coverage. The reason is that, ho hum, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Hell, it's not even reliable! Surely, you are looking for WikiNews but they're next door. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, as we are treating the sword attack via continuous, in depth, secondary coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "irrelevant" are the concerted attempts to present Wikipedia as a news source. It is not, it is officially not; and some people looking it up as a news source does not change that fact. Someone recently died and their Wikipedia article gets (hopefully) updated; this does not make Wikipedia a compilation of obituaries. Keep at it all you like, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor a news source. Arguing that "[Wikipedia] readers expect us to have pages on about trials that are in the news" is DOA. Nope, I'm not referring to the snowball clause. The article might stay up after this AfD but this will not be done because "hey, people read the news here!" -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic meets WP:NCRIME criteria with WP:INDEPTH WP:COVERAGE that has WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSEITY, and WP:PERSISTENCE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it meets diverseity, then that's alright. -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is continuing coverage which tells us that there will be an Old Bailey trial in June. That will trigger another round of coverage and so this discussion is premature. If we look at historical precedent – cases such as Edward Oxford – we see that they stand the test of time. In any case, there are reasonable alternatives to deletion such as merger with pages such as List of people who survived assassination attempts. Andrew D. (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No serious objection to merging this somewhere but the list you're proposing is about people who survived assassination. That'd be the royals, supposedly. -The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen survived this assassination attempt and so qualifies. The list contains details of each attempt, including a column for the would-be assassins and so an incident such as this would fit in just fine. Andrew D. (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen (and family) were in Balmoral at the time ...and no source has even suggested that any 'Royal' might have been a target. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request Could someone please provide reliable sources that report/corroborate that item about the defendant leaving behind a note that read The queen and her soldiers will all be in the hellfire? The only sources that contain a report about a letter, in the exact same form, too, as sewer pipes such as the Daily Mail (here), The Sun (here), or Breitbart News (here). Then, it goes further downhill, with blogs like jihadwatch. I can find nothing in The Guardian, The Independent, or The Times. Is there actually any substance to the letter allegation? A lot of the arguments above are based on the letter. Gimme a ticket for an aeroplane. -The Gnome (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go [42]--Shrike (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a subscriber to this particular journal so I cannot access the full text. But thanks anyway. -The Gnome (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

paywall work around: Wall Street Journal, 1 September 2017, Buckingham Palace Terror Attack Suspect Got Lost En Route to Original Target an INDEPTH, reported story (the 2nd long, reported that the Journal ran on this attack,) relevant paragraphs: "Court documents said just before Mr. Chowdhury left his home in Luton, where he lived with his parents, he wrote a letter to his sister in which he said he would be in paradise by the time she read it, according to the documents. 'Tell everyone that I love them and that they should struggle against the enemies of Allah with their lives and their property,' he wrote in a Word document on his laptop, which was later seized by police. 'The queen and her soldiers will all be in the hellfire.'In interviews with police, Mr. Chowdhury said Queen Elizabeth II was the root of his problems and that he wanted to “confront” police because they work for the queen. He first decided to carry out in attack that morning, but hadn’t determined an exact plan, he said." E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first serious media source about a letter I come across. Still wonder why other media have not picked up on it. It's not as if The Times for example are a "lefty rag" that "defends terrorists." Anyway, thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no lasting significance or societal impact; it's clear at this point. The event is an incident insufficiently notable for the encyclopedia; does not meet WP:10YT. I'm not buying the argument that because it took place in near the Palace or was covered as a curio, we must include it. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, one of the long series of vehicle-related security breaches and attacks that have led to the new security bollards recently installed around Buckingham Palace]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EMG, you say one of the long series of vehicle-related security breaches and attacks" - "one of..." suggests that it was just one incident among many. I'm not sure what point you are making then. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the "lasting significance or societal impact" of the recent Islamism-inspired attacks - including this one - is cumulative. The Islamism-inspired attacks of recent years have brought dramatic changes to London, not the least of which are security screens at the entrances to buildings, London bobbys carrying guns, and the bollards that have sprouted across the city. All of this is new, none of this happened in response to the 20th century IRA bombings, and it is a real impact. Shocks my old mum, who remembers better times - but you don't have to be very old to remember the time before contemporary Islamism-inspired terrorism caused these changes in London. Just old enough to remember the 7 July 2005. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just claim "cumulative impact" for every incident and ignore WP:NOTINHERITED. We are discussing this incident, not this or this. If "cumulative impact" is the best you have (it's the best I have seen), you have only demonstrated that this incident belongs in a list.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my iVote for GracefulSlick: k as per WP:SIGCOV demonstrated by meeting WP:NCRIME with WP:INDEPTH WP:COVERAGE that demonstrates WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSEITY, and WP:PERSISTENCE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I support measures against terrorists that would most probably appear as harsh and excessive to many people here. As also it happens, I have not one single word of sympathy for terrorists, or their justification for their crimes. My personal stance, however, I try to keep out of Wikipedia work. Here, for example, I could have promoted maximum exposure of all terrorist-related incidents, no matter how distant or how truly related to terrorism they are. I could be doing this on account of my pro-Israel sentiments, my Jewish identity, my personal trauma from terrorism, or my fears for kin living in terrorist-targeted areas. (All this is offered as an example; it might or might not bear on my real-life identity.) At the end, however, I choose truth and honesty and metron, as best as I can, in my limited ability. I might often go wrong in my choices, but I do try to follow those stars. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. -The Gnome (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Was somewhat laughably moved from 2017 Buckingham Palace incident to Buckingham Palace incident. Because nothing else notable has ever happened at Buckingham Palace, of course! If kept it should certainly be moved back or to a better title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Buckingham Palace sword attack proposed on talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except no sword attack took place! The most that could come out of the court case is intention to commit an attack. But why let facts get in the way of a good title? Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no lasting significance, no societal impact, no reason to believe it will cause such. Insufficiently notable, does not meet WP:10YT - or even WP:2YT. Great stuff for end of year trivia quizzes though! Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly per the proposal which there is no point regurgitating. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:55, 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. – Joe (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Carr[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Carr has acted in several straight-to-DVD films and apparently had minor roles in some more significant films, but there's no independent coverage of him beyond the local newspaper. Huon (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, why is my page nominated for deletion it's been up for many years and was originally created by the town's council from where I live just like the town of Aylesbury and my old school of the Grange school in Aylesbury, my name also features on these pages and again was added along time ago. I have spent many years trying to make something of myself and get the name of my town out there so I was extremely proud when I first found out others had written about me and what I do on Wikipedia.

I find it extremely sad I've been set upon and targeted like this ever since I was rudely abused by kleuske a while back.

Some of the film's I have started in have gone on to do good things, Love struck won the award of Best movie at the London Portobello film festival which is one of the biggest festivals in the United Kingdom, Another film jesis the curry king was one of the first movies ever shown digitally in a UK cinema paving the way for digital cinema in the UK, Ten Dead Men was shot on only 10 thousand pounds but yet went on to sell over 500'000 copies world wide which is unheard of for a small budgeted film, it even had limited edition dvds sold with metal cases in places like France and Germany and has continued to sell ten years later, rise of the footsoldier is an iconic movie based on true events here in the UK it was released in the cinema before worlwide on DVD.

If the local town who is responsible for playing part in the creation on such greats like David Bowie in his Ziggy star dust days deem my achievements good enough to list as a notable person then I am extremely proud and of my school that has millions of children passing through the school deems me important enough to list as a notable person then again in proud.

I have done and achieved quite allot more compared to even most of the Wikipedia editors you have on here which is probably why I am being targeted for such an attack and speedy deletion, it's unfair and extremely sad, it's border line cyber bullying by adults and should not be allowed to go.on on a website filled with so many intelligent people.

I think another contributing factor is down to the fact most editors on here seem to be from most countries other than the UK where we have our own.poll.of notable actors and achievers that people in the USA donot know about.

Regardless several of my.movies have been released in the USA and to DVD or.not.its a HUGE achievement, people like Quentin tarintino and other great directors and actors would.not be where they are today with out achieving such things.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendancarr (talk • contribs) 09:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to sources if you Google Brendan Carr actor, Brendan Carr ten dead men, Brendan Carr rise of the footsoldier etc etc there are many things which show who I am and what I do, I have recently taken my website down which in undergoing maintenance, once it's back online I will be adding all media content from.last 15 years, which include national and international magazines, including ones that had Honk kong,US, Japanese and Canadian distribution, I will be including the many international dvd covers from my films of which have Japanese, Chinese, french, German and limited edition dvds covers including the seperate covers made specifically for US distribution.

I would also like to ask if going on the fact the website was vandalised several years back and was then put back to its former state by Wikipedia editors "WHY" the page was not flagged for deletion then when all the other editors were looking at it and reinstating it, the page has survived more than 10 years on Wikipedia, it's not like it's a random page just suddenly added which again is something that miffs me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendancarr (talk • contribs) 09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep In cases like this, where the notability is borderline, I tend to side with inclusion. There is no doubt he is an actor; no doubt he exists. The issue I see is lack of reliable sources, and that in many of the big name roles listed in his filmography, he appears only as minor characters. In WP:NACTOR, he definitely does not meet the third point. Apparently, from the wording of the newspaper's writings about him, his local community could be considered a "fan base", although not one that would meet the second point. The first point, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." For a lot of his films, the only source online I could find that claimed he had played a role in them was Brendan Carr's YouTube channel in the form of montages. And furthermore, are the films listed even notable? Rise of the Foot Soldier is (probably). Band of Brothers is, but I was unable to find a reference for that. Many of them also have this issue; he only shows up on the IMDb page. I support keeping this article and removing all unsubstantiated material. Also, to swap Brendan Carr (lawyer) and Brendan Carr. _{Vermont | reply here} 10:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with support like this, who needs opposition? :-) The Gnome (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Huon's rationale. There is no significant or in-depth coverage of Carr and even the notability of the films is questionable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He has a starring role in Ten Dead Men and a non-starring one in Rise of the Footsoldier. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR, and other than a couple of articles in the Bucks Herald,[43][44], he hasn't received much media coverage/GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ACTOR. Yes, the article may have been up for years but Wikipedia's rules have progressively become quite strict in terms of notability. And an important point: The subject of the contested article may actually be known in the general public or just among cinema goers. He or she may, in fact, be well known. The proposal to delete the article is based strictly on Wikipedia's rules, whereby verifiability by sources rules the roost: Notability has to be based on acceptable, third party, independent sources. There are many, many actors and actresses favored and loved by me who cannot have a Wikipedia article. As the man said, "Wikipedia is not about the truth but about verifiability." -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I myself have now searched and found 1000s of Actors, Producers and Directors whom you have allowed to keep there articles on Wikipedia, weak verifications, weak sources and less notability than my fish in my aquarium, it has become clear to me that Wikipedia is ran my at least 99% US based editors, RE. If I were an editor Brendan Carr Lawer would not have a place on Wikipedia because in the UK not a soul has a clue whom he is, no notability to anyone this side of the atlantic. If I were an American based Actor with American movie credits this outcome would be allot different. I have been warned in several forums I'm fighting a losing battle as Wikipedia is largely US Biase and sadly it would appear they are correct. What amuses me is that for several of the film's I have been in you have Wikipedia articles for, you also have me mentioned in various other Wikipedia articles across the board and yet want to delete the main article written about me, non of which makes an ounce of sense because Wikipedia itself is then acting as a source for the article about me that is extremely contradictory, I'm pretty sure many Wikipedia rules are being broken here by yourselves to and further contradiction the the so called laws and rules are taking place, but looking into such thing would be useless and futile as like I've stated I'm fighting a battle I already lost. I see from searching you not only have wikipedia articles in place for films I have worked on but have Wikipedia articles up for the producers and directors of the film's to. The article about Brendan Carr holds far more notability than half of the hog wash you currently allow to stay on Wikipedia and far more notability than at least 50% of the current actors you allow to linger on Wikipedia most of whom appear to be American, strange that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendancarr (talk • contribs) 12:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something further more Wikipedia itself states: "WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers covers biographical material of individuals involved in the process of making motion pictures, including people in the film industry such as actors, directors, crew, and others who may be listed in the motion picture credits of a film"

Not only am i an "Actor" whom has starred in movies but I have also "PRODUCED" several of them, one of them selling over 500'000 copies worldwide, therefore I am a person involved in the making of motion pictures, and my name listed in the motion picture credits of A FILM, At least 15 to be precise, two of which have "WON AWAREDS" so yet again you all contradict the very RULES ANS LAWS that are written by yourselves on Wikipedia 🤔. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendancarr (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're correct; there must be lots of articles that have no place in Wikipedia according to the now prevalent house-rules, on the basis of lack of notability as well as of other transgressions. I already mentioned there's significant clean-up effort going on. As to Wikipedia's "bias towards American actors", where is the evidence to back that up? Here's a tip: The argument that "other stuff exists" is a dead duck. The only argument in support of the article staying up would be one constructed out of sources, i.e. secondary, independent, reliable, as many as possible sources that prove your Wiki-notability. There are legendary figures of silent cinema who do not have an article in Wikipedia. That's not on account of some bias towards talking pictures (!) but because Wikipedia is not about the truth ; it's about verifiability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up the duplicate entry made by Brendan Carr Nick (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clearly the case that Brendan does not meet the requirements for an article at this time - the absence of in depth, detailed, independent coverage in larger national or international press sources. I have a very small amount of sympathy for Brendan's arguments about automatic notability, but even if we accept that, there's a dearth of reliable sources and we still wouldn't have an appropriately sourced BLP, so we still couldn't have an article. Nick (talk) 13:04, 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.