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. While I think that my previous relist has been amply justified by the spirited discussion that followed, I also feel that at this point it is clear that there is absolutely no consensus on the possible notability of this club. Another relist is excessive, so I am ending this now. Randykitty (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C.[edit]

Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:GNG trumps WP:FOOTYN for club notability. With the deletion of Dontan on GNG grounds despite having played in the national cup FOOTY:N can no longer be used to save articles. Cray are a team that play in a regional 9th division football league. In 99 years they have never progressed past the prelim round of the FA Cup. The FA Vase is not the national cup so their only 2nd round appearance is irrelevant. The only thing I found specifically about Cray was a loan goalkeeper headbutting the post 3 times before punching it. Dougal18 (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per clear consensus from numerous AfDs that playing in the FA Cup or FA Vase is sufficient for notability for English football clubs (most recent AfD here). The Dontam outcome is relevant to Thai clubs but not here. All clubs at this level in England have articles (possibly bar a couple promoted to this level at the end of last season that haven't been created yet), so deleting this one would lead to inconsistency in the information Wikipedia provides. Number 57 18:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those were decided before the Dontan AFD. To suggest different standards for different countries is discriminatory. To claim that the Vase (a cup for 9th division or lower clubs) grants notability is ridic and ignores GNG. Your keep argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and forgets that if one brick is removed then the whole wall can go with it.Dougal18 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, this is not a discrimination issue - as I have said repeatedly in recent discussions, the cutoff point for club notbility is going to be different in different countries - for example, playing in the Coupe de France could not be used as a notabililty factor for French clubs as over 8,000 clubs enter the competition. Secondly, you seem to be labouring under the misconception that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is always a problematic argument, when it is perfectly valid to use it to ensure consistency in Wikipedia coverage. Number 57 19:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So just because the FA Cup has a tenth of the teams it's a case of "welcome in lads" whereas for their French counterparts it's "non"? Consistency can be ensured by a mass deletion of clubs that don't meet GNG.Dougal18 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Number 57. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Number 57/existing consensus. Nzd (talk) 18:29, 11 Augustc2018 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know if Dougal18 is on a witch hunt, but there is historic consensus that these lower clubs have enough notability that qualifies under WP:FOOTYN. Govvy (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Number 57.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am aware of consensus &c, but I do find it interesting - and depressing - that "Number 57" so unquestionably accepts the Anglosphere Only Movement. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment appearing in the FA Cup doesn't guarantee notability; but it certainly doesn't mean that they're not notable. I'm not convinced all teams in the Southern Counties East Football League are independently notable; a redirect to that page would definitely be better than deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I was pinged, I'll re-affirm my position: a redirect to Southern Counties East Football League is clearly better than deletion, but I have no opinion on keep v. redirect; the sourcing has improved since the discussion opened. I'm not sure that any amount of coverage at kentishfootball.co.uk will be sufficient, but there may be enough sources even ignoring tht site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the Dontan AfD was probably correctly decided based on what sources are easily available or searchable on the internet (I know we had someone who spoke Thai, but after some digging I think they were probably notable due to television coverage.) I do not think it means that WP:FOOTYN is irrelevant, but rather WP:FOOTYN is a presumption that can be overcome if WP:GNG is unavailable. In this case, steps 9 (and even 10) of the English non-league are quite well documented in local sources. Furthermore nominator may simply have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as per their nomination here, claiming a "bias" towards English football: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FA_Cup_semi-finals SportingFlyer talk 12:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment: Given that our policy states that clubs should meet the GNG, why in the hell doesn't anyone look at the sources and try to establish it via that? I see basically no comment on sourcing here and no indication that anyone has even bothered to do a search. Please stop this insistence that FOOTYN is an SNG, and actually look at the sources and how this particular club stacks up. @SportingFlyer: per your comment, note that "local coverage" usually isn't enough to establish notability via the GNG, topics usually require national or at least regional level coverage to meet the GNG (small local papers etc are usually discounted in notability discussions). All I could find was limited local sourcing: [1] or sourcing that isn't exactly about the team [2][3]. I'm curious if anyone can find anything better, because if this were any other topic, people wouldn't be screaming 'keep' or 'speedy keep' based on the sourcing I am seeing. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you think FOOTYN exists out of nowhere, especially the "Step 10 club" rule? I'm considering "local coverage" to be British newspapers, including ones dedicated to non-league football. There are and have been numerous non-league directories published about English football, their histories are recorded in databases specific to English football, groundhoppers consistently discuss these clubs in blogs ([4]), and local papers consistently write articles about results. They are well documented as a group through routine coverage, and no original research is needed to write these articles (unlike, possibly, Dontan). A Google search of my own brings up 48,000 results including a Google "Matches, News and Standings" of their most recent F.A. Cup score. Obviously not all of those sources will show notability, but that only encompasses online sources for a club that has been around since 1919. SportingFlyer talk 05:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Whilst WP:FOOTYN is not a SNG, the English club rule is a de facto one and has been consensus for well over a decade. The reason it's not an actual SNG is because there's nowhere to record it – it was listed in WP:NCORP in 2006, but was removed for being overly-specific, and WP:NSPORT doesn't cover teams. In the absence of an appropriate guideline, it has been recorded at FOOTYN for reference. Number 57 07:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be generally useful as a 'rule of thumb', but it fails as a rule of thumb if it is so open as to be often contrary to the GNG. You can't argue that a team that has no sourcing to meet the GNG should be declared notable based on this arbitrary criteria. That's what SNGs are for, and if you want FOOTYN elevated to one, run an RfC on WP:Village pump (policy) (I doubt that such an RfC would succeed). Still no one has pointed out how this club comes even close to meeting the general notability guideline. SportingFlyer accurately states that database histories, blogs, and routine match result listings are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Shoehorning unsourcable articles on low level clubs onto the encyclopedia is a direct violation of WP:NOT. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree it's contrary to the GNG, though. I never stated they are insufficient to demonstrate notability. The club is mentioned in at least number of articles on kentishfootball.co.uk, kentsportsnews.com, kentonline.co.uk, nonleague.today, thenonleaguefootballpaper.com, and the FA's web site [www.thefa.com/news/2015/Oct/31/fa-vase-round-up-31-october-2015] (not a primary source, even though the club is a member of the association). Local sources are no less reliable than national sources, either. There are self-published sources which are more reliable than you would see for a normal corporation (since they're clearly not sponsored) such as [5] or [6], as the writers aren't promoting products randomly, a normal WP:NCORP concern. Their statistics are noted on several different websites [7]. I'm sure I have information on them in a book that's in storage, likely demonstrated by the bibliography [8] is a good place to demonstrate non-league football teams get written about a lot. Remember when you used to buy independently written league guides and directories for non-league football? This is just interesting to me and not a part of my argument, but they even have a Vietnamese Wikipedia article [9].

Furthermore, I agree Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a collection of indiscriminate information, but this article has nothing to do with either of those concerns. The article is validly prosed, as opposed to being in a list like "Cray Valley Paper Mills | Badgers Stadium" - and this isn't your local Sunday league side that's completely un-source-able. The Dontan article was interesting - and as I noted, it may have passed WP:GNG if one could access Thai television sources, even though I couldn't get it over the line. SportingFlyer talk 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those cited sources are even close to being a source that is significant, independent and reliable to the degree required by WP:GNG. Based on the complete lack of sources demonstrated, and a lack of any that I could find, I am forced to change 'comment' to 'delete'. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I searched in the british newspaper archive but I can't find anything significant there either.[10] — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per N57 and prior AFD consensus. GiantSnowman 11:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment I have not looked for sources for this club. However I hope that the closer takes note of the quality of the argument presented; the vast majority of these comments do not make a true argument for notability, citing WP:FOOTYN which most definitely is not WP:NFOOTY. It's important to remember why SNGs exist: as a shortcut not a replacement to proving that an article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:N. It is presumed that if an article topic passes SNG that there will be enough sources available to satisfy GNG. I don't have time at the moment to evaluate the sourcing offered by SportingFlyer but appreciate their efforts to make a GNG argument rather than relying on a project guideline in an AfD. If footy fans feel that FOOTYN should be more than it is, at minimum I would think about getting community consensus to incorporating AfD results into WP:OUTCOMES if not WP:NFOOTY. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than the "vast majority", only two of the seven editors who have so far stated support for keeping the article have referenced WP:FOOTYN. However, you are probably right about trying to get this listed in WP:OUTCOMES – given the clarity of consensus over many years, hopefully this shouldn't be too difficult. I think the only reason it hasn't been done already is that there haven't been any serious issues until the White Ensign AfD. Number 57 19:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have cited your original comment, which doesn't directly cite FOOTYN (likely on purpose given the close at Dontan)^{or not, see below}, but clearly contains the same content and argument as FOOTYN. I'd also like to point out that arguing that "all clubs at this level have articles" and "deleting this one would lead to inconsistency" is a clear violation of WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cite FOOTYN in the White Ensign AfD despite it being before the Donatan one, so please don't make bad faith assumptions. Thanks, Number 57 20:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: YOU added the 'step 6' criteria to FOOTYN during the White Ensign AfD... Apparently in violation to that page's own hatnote indicating that the page should not be changed without discussion at WT:FOOTY. It wasn't there for you to cite in your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Ensign F.C. (2nd nomination) at the time you made your !vote. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cite FOOTYN in this AfD or this AfD or this AfD either, despite it theoretically being possible to use both in favour of deletion or keeping based on the lack of or history of cup participation. All I'm asking is for you to withdraw your bad faith comment. Thanks, Number 57 20:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not bad faith, I never said that it would be untoward for you not to cite FOOTYN. However, it is clear that your original comment, regardless whether it cites FOOTYN or not, still makes direct reference to the content of FOOTYN. This accusation of bad faith seems little more than a distraction from the point of the conversation. You commented above indicating that Barkeep49's comment was invalid because users weren't directly citing FOOTYN, yet they were citing you, and you were parroting the content included at FOOTYN (that you yourself added). I am seriously considering an RfC to rewrite WP:NTEAM. Instead of 'not applying to teams' and pointing to the GNG, it should simply and clearly state that teams must meet the General notability guideline, and that notability is WP:NOT INHERITED from leagues that teams play in. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You inferred that I deliberately avoided mentioning FOOTYN because of the outcome of the Dontan AfD, which suggests that I am attempting to Wikilawyer.

Also, my addition to FOOTYN was mainly around clarifying that playing at step 6 was deemed to be the cut-off point for English clubs. The part about playing in national cups (which is what I based my argument on above) was already there. Number 57 21:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I already added clarification to my comment above. Please drop it. Regarding 'cutoff points' Please read WP:NRV. SNGs (or indeed notability essays by wikiprojects) are not 'alternatives' to the GNG, they should represent shortcuts that indicate what is likely to be notable under the GNG. This is why all the parts of WP:NSPORT say "presumed notable" rather than "inherently notable". If a topic that meets one of 'cutoff points' of WP:NFOOTY can be demonstrated to not have sourcing sufficient for WP:NRV or WP:GNG, it is not notable. However, it is difficult to demonstrate a negative in many cases, which is why cutoff points in our notability SNGs are generally chosen high, so that articles are not presumed to be notable when they are not, and we can generally avoid arguments about source searching. The cuttoff point chosen by FOOTYN, and the Wikiproject Football community generally, is too low, and has not been vetted by the wider community. A consensus on a series of AfDs frequented by football invested editors does not represent general consensus by the wider community, and can't be substituted for it to support the content of FOOTYN as a psuedo-SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not too low. For instance, in 2009, a step 11 (below the threshold!) was found to pass WP:GNG: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St_Blazey_A.F.C.. I don't mind the guidelines being reformed, either — for instance the unsourced Wichita Jets passed an AfD (though they may be notable, the AfD was speedy kept because the nominator got the sport wrong.). SportingFlyer talk 22:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: your comment seems to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what the subject specific notability guidelines are supposed to do. They represent a cutoff point above which all topics should be notable, but do not represent a claim or argument that all topics below this point are not notable. Of course it is possible for players below the guidelines set out in WP:NFOOTY to be notable, they only have to pass the GNG. The same is true of clubs below step ten; if they meet the GNG they are notable. A good SNG on football clubs would pick a cuttoff point above which ALL clubs meet and exceed the minimum requirements of the GNG, and step ten certainly appears too low to meet that bar based on this and other AfDs that I have seen recently. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to endorse this explanation of what a SNG is and what purpose it should serve. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstand my point, then, because I agree with you about the purpose of an SNG. My point is and continues to be the assumption Step 10 clubs pass WP:GNG is valid. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: You're right that you did not cite FOOTYN and lots of the people said per you. My original comment should have been clearer. My larger point remains. Your argument isn't policy based. It's an allusion to an WP:OUTCOMES type argument but since it's not in OUTCOMES, or any other place where there's been community scrutiny of the idea, the discussion here should be about whether Cary Valley Paper Mills FC meets GNG or doesn't. I haven't spent the time to look which is why I made a comment not a !vote but the lack of policy/source discussion at AfD struck me as unusual hence my comment to the closer. Speaking personally, I tend to take a pretty hardline view that the guidelines are what they are and am not a fan of exceptions, but do (generally speaking) support most efforts made to make those guidelines more inclusive. I'm an inclusionist at heart, if more on the narrow side in practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Like I said, the reason this has never been listed at OUTCOMES is because no-one has had a serious problem with it up until recently. As a result, the consensus of the AfDs in the clubs is all we have to go on to prove that editors believe this is an appropriate bar for notability. Like you, I would also say that I have a pretty hardline view on the guidelines and have nominated numerous articles for deletion, such as season articles that fails WP:NSEASONS or players that fail WP:NFOOTY, as well as clubs for deletion where they fail the threshold under discussion here (just take a look at my deleted contributions list to see how many football articles I've prodded or AfD'd). However, where a club article does pass what has always been the accepted threshold, I have put a lot of effort into improving them to ensure that they are worthwhile encyclopedia entries (this article only had two references before I rewrote it a couple of years ago). Number 57 21:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: From what I have seen based on the AfDs you previously provided, most teams within the criteria at FOOTYN are notable, the vast majority in fact. The problem is that there are some teams that only barely qualify once or twice to scrape into the bottom of things like the FA cup. White Ensign for example, hasn't actually yet played in the FA cup as far as I can tell,[11] and is only eligible and at step 6 because of the very recent Addition of Division One South to the Eastern Counties Football League. The club in this AfD has only ever played a few games each season in the preliminary round of the FA cup [12], and that hasn't garnered enough coverage to meet the GNG, from what I can tell. Can you accept that some clubs that scrape the bottom of the criteria at FOOTYN simply aren't notable enough to meet the GNG? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)'[reply]

In any set of articles that pass an SNG (or a consensus similar to one in this case), there are always going to be a small number skirting around the edges of GNG; as an example, we have articles on every person ever to be a member of the Knesset (most of which I have written). These people all pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, but there are a few, mostly people well down party lists and were brief replacements at the end of Knesset terms, who it would be difficult to show passed GNG and we are sometimes reliant on their listing on the Knesset website for any information about them.

When we have these clearly defined sets of articles, there is a question over whether it is beneficial to Wikipedia to have a complete set or not. I would argue strongly that it is beneficial to readers to ensure that we have the entire set of articles for completeness and consistency, and I disagree with the comments above about WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE – these articles are not directory listings or a table of statistics, but instead properly written encyclopedia entries. This is also hardly an obscure article; it gets around 700 pageviews a month – this is potentially 700 readers who are going to miss out if this article is deleted. So ultimately, even if an article like this could be shown to fail WP:GNG, I'd invoke WP:IAR as I believe its presence is a net positive. Number 57 11:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent point. SNGs, especially in sports, are over-inclusive. I have seen athlete articles at AfC who would fail WP:GNG but pass the requisite SNG. SportingFlyer talk 15:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Fair enough if no one has had an issue until recently, but now that an issue has been raised, all the more reason to bring it to a wider audience to get a sense of true project consensus, I would suggest. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now have looked at sourcing for this club. Given that it's 100 years old I would have expected to find a plethora of options, including those of the type that would be found by the kind of British newspaper archives search ICPH did. Match reports are generally not considered the kind of significant sourcing needed to establish notability (but obviously can be used as sources in the article when notability has been established). The most significant sources lacked independence or were not reliable. I echo Masem's point below that I would hope for people to produce sources which satisfy WP:N/WP:GNG but for the time being have give a !vote to delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. It does not meet the SNG WP:NFOOTY (not to be confused with the essay WP:FOOTYN). The vast majority of Google hits I see are mere fixture listings, and the rest don't seem sufficient to be deemed significant coverage. The refs currently in the article are to stats sites, non-independent sites, or trivial mentions. I'm not a football fan, so would welcome anyone that can point to significant coverage that I have overlooked. It would seem that if an AfD contests whether an article meets GNG, the response would be to identify the sources, not to echo essays or points not supported in established guidelines.—Bagumba (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• First, WP:NFOOTY is only for people. Recently, there are a number of match reports in secondary sources, such as their win over division 3 AFC Wimbledon, who wrote about the team they played, and their runs to recent cup finals in spite of the odds: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] and in 2017 that was a historic cup win [19]. Not notable, but they also get mentioned in BBC Results, likely one reason why the Step 10 guideline exists. [20] Keep in mind this team has been around since 1919 - I haven't been able to source historical articles yet (due to time and inability to access sources), but I remain convinced significant coverage of this team exists. SportingFlyer [[User talk:SportingFlyer for thier efort in searching. |talk]] 07:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My point regarding NFOOTY is that it is the only football SNG. Not meeting that, GNG needs to be met.—Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The two links from kentishfootball.co.uk are extensive enough to count towards one source of significant coverage, as GNG stteds that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The next two from afcwimbledon.co.uk are the AFC Wimbledon team itself writing about their own opponent, which doesn't seem independent. The following two from londonfa.com, an organization that "are responsible for developing and supporting all grassroots football in London." This is not independent. Regarding southlondonclub.co.uk, the site is a for a "local membership card to help support the best independent businesses in South London." Sounds promotional and not independent. I agree that the BBC trivial mention is not notable. Having reviewed these, I still mainitain my intitial !vote that GNG is not met.—Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Bagumba's assessment, and I'd like to commend SportingFlyer for their effort in searching and finding the kentishfootball sources. If anything else to establish 'multiple' can be found, I'm happy to change my !vote, but currently the kentishfootball sources are the only ones that meet GNG requirements. I'd normally like to see some sort of source reviewing the club itself, rather than just covering the actions during a game, but the best I could find is this single paragraph in the London Economic reviewing thier grounds. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the londonfa.com and afcwimbledon sources are independent enough. Still, their back-to-back finals appearances in the London Senior Cup final generated a lot of coverage - you could bet on the games and the finals were picked up on directory websites such as goal.com [21], Soccerway [22], and in France [23] and there are match reports in other independent newspapers as well [24]. I also disagree the South London Club is "promotional" because it's not written like an advertisement for the club or the card. I admit it's borderline, but it's a borderline keep. SportingFlyer talk 03:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition. Sources in this discussion seem to indicate GNG is satisfied, particularly considering the 100 year history of this club. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regardless if one thinks FOOTYN is valid as an SNG, I will point out that it presents the notability for clubs based on a rebuttable presumption (the standard for all SNGs), and Dougal here has apparently given a rebuttal (that there are no reasonable independent secondary sources from a reasonable search that they have done from their side) to that presumption. Anyone !voting strictly on saying it passes FOOTYN is not addressing that rebuttal. Those !votes need to show that valid sourcing that covers the topic in detail (not primary sources, not just box scores or stats) exist to some degree. It doesn't have to be the extent of all possible sourcing for the club, but it needs to demonstrate that the rebuttal challenge was wrong. That I do not see yet in this discussion - there's arm-waving sources exist but it's time for those actual sources to be shown and linked for review. --Masem (t) 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Masem: the nominating user has a history of actively deleting content including a couple short-term blocks over content which was removed, and has unsuccessfully nominated an article in the past accusing the project of a bias towards English football. Please note I'm not saying this deletion was necessarily in bad faith, but I am frustrated, however, that the very first step towards a discussion on how the Dontan AfD might affect WP:FOOTYN was by trying to "tear down the whole wall" citing discrimination as opposed to having a constructive discussion in another forum. Also, I've already linked several sources, including a couple showing the club was the lowest-ranked club (by league) in history to win a cup that has been contested since the 1880s. SportingFlyer talk 15:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to keep the issue of whether FOOTNY is legit or not out of it. We have to remember that we do not have inclusion guidelines, we have notability guidelines, and they have to show that a topic is covered by independent secondary sources (which clearly this doesn't right now) or can be presumed that it likely has been or will be with more in-depth searching, with that being a rebuttable challenge. A seemingly fair challenge has been raised, so it's time to show that there's source better sourcing out there. Remember that we're looking for secondary coverage - transformative information, not just repetition of facts or records. --Masem (t) 15:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on the sources. I've provided a number of sources so far showing the club receives consistent independent secondary coverage. SportingFlyer talk 15:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN and per significant previous consensus at AfD. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways - just because Dontan was deleted doesn't mean this should. Plus, as others have pointed out, it's not always an invalid argument. I wonder if anyone who cited that has actually read it. Besides, the sources are enough to meet GNG, so this is all moot anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Specifically which sources? I have done a pretty thorough search myself and evaluated those provided by SportingFlyer (the only 'keep' editor here who seems interested in actually looking), and I and other have found them lacking. It isn't really possible to understand your claim that the GNG is met unless you provide the sources that demonstrate that. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the Kentish Football and BBC sources, which by themselves should be enough to establish GNG, there's [25], [26], [27], [28], and several others. There appear to be more results when searching for "Cray Valley PM" than when using the full name. Smartyllama (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed above that the Kentish Football sources count as one. The BBC source is the shortest of short mentions, nothing more than a name listing among Kent's other football teams; very far from anything approaching 'significant' coverage. For the other sources you listed: #1 literally has a title, a synopsis from one of the team's websites directly copied, and a bunch of photos (not 'significant'). #2 is not about the team, it is a story about the goalkeeper pitching a hissy fit and contains next to no information about the team. #3 appears to be a short press release about a manager leaving the team, and again contains next to no information about the team (not 'significant'). Overall the information in these sources can't really be used to support anything about the club. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know two editors who I respect have said they're counting Kentish Football as one source - a stance I'm not entirely sure I agree with. However, my reservation was that I could find no sense of their editorial policy to make judgement about it being RS or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly not sure. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also gave the benefit of the doubt on Kentish Football. I am not a football fan, and am not from the UK. Frankly, this is always a risk when people try to determine notability about a subject they are not very familiar with, in countries they are not experts on. It would be even worse if this was in a foreign language. Not all Google hits should be automatically considered to be an RS for Wikipedia purposes, and most are not significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually probably say that [this source] is the next best one after the Kentish Football sources, but even then seems to fail on being a solid WP:RS source (no idea what their editorial policy is or on how they choose what to cover). The article was written by Mike Green, presumably this Mike Green, who doesn't appear to have any connection to the team so is presumably independent. The article is about the team's performance during a cup final, but contains little to no information about the club otherwise (borderline significance IMO). Interested to hear your opinion on this one Bagumba. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record (and it probably doesn't matter anyway but what the heck) I can't see anything that would suggest that Mike Green, a Kent-based journalist, is the same person as Mike Green, a West Country-based footballer. Mike Green isn't exactly a rare name, so there's no compelling reason to believe they are the same person..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: No comment if it's reliable. As for the content, without more coverage of Cray's regular games, I'd be more inclined to think it might prove that the league or it's championship game are notable, not that the specific teams that play in it are.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Personally I would change WP:FOOTYN to only accept FA Cup participation as being notable (so Amateur Cup, Trophy and Vase wouldn't be), but that's just me. As this club has played in the FA Cup, I'd keep the article. Kivo (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kivo: First, FOOTYN does not 'accept' anything as notable, it isn't a Subject Specific Notability Guideline (SNG). Second, even SNGs such as WP:NSPORT do not 'accept' topics as notable, they create a presumption of notability, which may be overruled if challenged and no evidence can be found of the topic meeting the requirements of the WP:GNG. Furthermore the only SNG that mentions teams is WP:NTEAM which states that teams must meet the GNG. I invite you to discuss sources and the topic's meeting or not meeting the GNG instead (as very few keep !voters have in this discussion). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't WP:NTEAM cover sports teams (instead you are directed straight to GNG), but it does cover athletes who have competed in the Olympic Games? There will be some individual Olympians who have swum 50m and been eliminated, and they will be 'presumed notable' - but not football clubs (with decades of history) that have played in the FA Cup? Just an observation. Anyway, the Cray Valley PM article seems well sourced (from numerous separate sources too). Also, do sources have to be online to meet GNG? With over a century of history, the club will have had lots of media coverage that is simply unavailable to us. Kivo (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kivo:Nearly all of the sources in the article either fail to represent significant coverage, or are not independent, or cannot be confirmed to be a reliable source. That's the issue here (see discussion above). Sources are not required to be online, but we can't assume that they exist just because the topic is old. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would represent 'significant' coverage? We'd have to discount anything that wasn't online (you couldn't cite a TV documentary for example, as my village team was lucky enough to feature in last year), in which case significant would suggest national coverage? Regional? There's plenty of regional sources cited already. Nationwide would be very difficult for a lot of clubs below Step 1. Kivo (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason we would have to discount anything not online. Offline sources are definitely acceptable as RS. Is there a TV documentary about the team? If it was produced and aired by ITV or BBC I would say it's likely RS and it would change my thinking (and likely my !vote). But I don't think we're aware of any such sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kivo: Look at WP:SIGCOV, which gives the rule - there are a number of sources linked above as well (I think they do significantly cover the topic.) Also, to answer your previous question, the reason for the difference is organizations are different from people: we are very careful with biographical articles, especially ones of people who are alive. SportingFlyer talk 22:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Number57, GiantSnowman and prior AFD consensus. Drawoh46 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The notion by those seeking to delete the article seems to come from the idea that a small team in the lower reaches of the English football pyramid isn't notable because either a) teams at a similar level in other nation's leagues are not present on the wiki or b) there are a lack of independent sources. To counter both arguements, firstly, the English pyramid system is noted for its depth and organisation compared to other countries. The league system is much more structured and professionalised at the tenth level than pretty much every other nation in which football is played professionally. The clubs at the 10th tier of English football are mainly semi-professional. Additionally, if the argument is made that this team should be deleted, then at what level do we cut teams out? Are National League teams not notable because they don't play in the Football League? Are 7th tier teams not notable because they don't play in nationwide leagues? To me, those would seem arbitrary as cut offs. Additionally, the 10th tier is known as being a cut off point between the amateur lower levels and the semi-professional game, with some rules being present in level 10 (such as requiring clubs to sell tickets to games) that are not present at level 11, along with teams below level 10 not usually being allowed to compete in the FA Cup. Secondly, sources are to provide back up for facts, not to contest that something exists. If a page is noteworthy but does not have a lot of sources, that is not inherently a reason to delete the page. Yes, good sources should always be desired, however they are not essential for an article. And besides, Cray Valley's performance and entry into leagues should be well documented by the FA and the relevant league's website, which are credible sources. To me, this debate seems to be made by a bunch of people who don't really understand the structure of English football and are trying to establish a precedent to delete a bunch of articles just because they don't feel like they should exist. These teams are noteworthy, and should be kept. BarnabyJoe (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I know I'm going against the grain here, but I cannot support anything but deletion, mostly because I am extremely reluctant to make decisions on inclusion based on unwritten consensus. If there truly is consensus for a certain threshold, then it should be codified; if it isn't codified, we shouldn't apply it. Arguing along the lines of "I know it's not in the rules, but this is how it's done here" sounds dangerously like an old-boys club. The only applicable codified threshold I can see is WP:GNG, and I cannot see this club meeting that threshold. Vanamonde (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As you probably know the consensus is quasi-codified at WP:FOOTYN; it's just not "official" policy. Furthermore I still believe this club meets the WP:GNG threshold as described above. SportingFlyer talk 10:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus is also evidenced in all the AfDs we've had on English clubs – see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 (I could provide more, but hopefully this is enough to demonstrate the consensus). I have never seen an article on a club that crosses the threshold deleted since I've been a regular contributor in 2006. Number 57 11:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I randomly clicked on link 40, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cottesmore Amateurs F.C., which was closed as "delete". That aside, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Judge this article on it's own merits in the absence of any vetted guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, in many of these AfDs the result was delete – because they had not played at level 10 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase. The purpose was to illustrate the existence of consensus that this is the cut-off point for club notability (and it's probably used more often to delete clubs that don't meet this requirement). And as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states: "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."; all clubs at this level in the English pyramid have articles, so deleting this one would create inconsistency. Number 57 07:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• IAR? OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that "Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars." However, WP:5P2 writes that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". The guideline WP:WHYN further states: We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. Unfortunately, significant coverage in independent sources has not been identified. I haven't seen a strong rationale presented to apply WP:IAR here.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't matter anyways, as the club passes WP:GNG (there's at least agreement it's borderline) - and even assuming it doesn't, there are no NPOV issues in the article, nor is it written like an advertisement. SportingFlyer talk 03:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we are writing about topics for which independent sources don't give the time of day, it is still promotional, even if the content does not "sound" glaringly like an over-the-top advertisement.—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. If it's not written like a promotion, it's not promotional. That's literally the definition of promotional. Smartyllama (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - does this really need even more discussion? As a general comment, I do think that notability in Wikipedia should be equal access for all countries. If this means that a league in a small island country grants notability comparable to a very professional league in a much larger country - then so be it. But, that is something that needs to be discussed elsewhere, not through AFD discussions. Ross-c (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised that it was relisted, particuarly as I has just added 50 examples of AfDs on English clubs to demonstrate the existence of consensus on the matter. Number 57 13:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The rest is irrelevant and, as suggested above, the wafflings of an old-boy's club. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet you were happy to invoke the national cup participation rule when it was a women's club being nominated... Number 57 19:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would say English football club articles had digged too deep into amateur league, which the consideration should be more on WP:GNG (or non-routine coverage on secondary source) when start to counting over 5 level below top level. It may be a good project for football dedicated encyclopedia, but in wikipedia it seem not that necessary. Keep only if non-routine source or even book (non-primary source one) about the club were digged out and insert to the article. Matthew_hk tc 03:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:GNG requires that a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This club gets significant coverage in a number of independent sources, which includes in-depth match previews (1, 2) and match reports (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) in local media, rival club sites and various other football sites. There is a historical account of the club on the offical league website and accounts of their ground appear in a number of online stadium guides. The only question is how reliable these sources are. If it was one online source, this might be an issue, but there are many independent sources, including reputable local media and offical organisations. It passes the criteria in WP:GNG.   Jts1882 | talk  07:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not independent Aside from kentishfootball.co.uk, which was already discussed earlier, the other sites you listed do no seem independent. Pitchero.com is a promotional platform to support clubs, and does not seem independent: "United on one unique platform Pitchero provides each club, league or county organisations with the tools they need to create a website, manage their membership and collect payments online"[29] Cray-wanderers.com, ashfordunitedfc.com, and balhamfc.com are sites of football clubs writing about opponent Cray Valley Paper Mills. As they would be expected to write about any opponent of theirs', it is not independent nor presumed to be discriminate. Brixtonbuzz.com is a website with local entertainment listings. The link you listed is really just a collection of photos, a blurb from team website, and ticket purchase info. Doesn't seem significant enough to help expand on Wikipedia content. Londonfa.com also seems affiliated, being a "governing body of football in London. We aim to grow participation, promote diversity, safeguard the game for everyone to enjoy, and to retain and develop the workforce."[30] Finally, talesfromthepigeonstands.wordpress.com, with no dedicated domain name, looks like an amateur blog. The site says that they "we will be visiting as many grounds as possible in order to provide the casual football fan with the information they need before making an educated decision as to how they plan to spend their Saturday afternoon as well as telling soe jolly tales from our expeditions."[31]—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As already stated, this club fits the notability criteria laid down many years ago under WP:FOOTYN due to the level at which it plays. Rillington (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why was this relisted? Consensus was clearly to keep, we should have just closed this so we can stop wasting everyone's time. Smartyllama (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from last relist admin Despite the walls of text badgering every "delete" !vote here, in my opinion consensus is not as clear a you make it seem. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I also don't understand why you have resisted this. The overwhealming consensus is to keep and it has been stated time and time again why this article should be kept, and why. Rillington (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think his point is that few of the Keep !votes are grounded in policy or guideline-based reasons for keeping the article. The vast majority cite either the Wikiproject pseudo-SNG essay (not a guideline), or are "per Number 57", which is essentially an "other stuff" argument or an argument from 'outcomes'. Some of the Keep !votes have even stated that the GNG is irrelevent, despite WP:NTEAM being the relevant guideline advice. A few of the Keep !votes disagree about the article not meeting the GNG, which is totally fine, and the article won't close as 'delete'. But the article could easily be closed as 'no consensus' by an admin who decided to disregard !votes that have no footing in our notability guidelines. From what I can see: There appear to be precisely five editors in the above discussion arguing that the sourcing is sufficient to meet the GNG (SportingFlyer, Smartyllama, Fenix down, Kivo, Jts1882) though only a couple of those editors discuss which sources they believe meet the GNG's requirements. Six editors have argued that the sourcing is insufficient for GNG (Dougal18^{(the nom)}, Myself, Barkeep49, Bagumba, Vanamonde93, Bring back Daz Sampson). Additionally, Multiple editors have 'Commented' in various ways that the keep !voters are off base (RobinCarmody, power~enwiki, Masem, Matthew_hk). Remember that AfD is not a head counting exercise, or majority vote, arguments for keeping or deleting an article must be rooted in policy, and then are weighted accordingly. Assessed this way, the above discussion more closely represents a 'no consensus' situation than 'keep'; I am pretty sure that this is why Randykitty relisted it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per Number 57. Clyde1998 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article about amateur football club apparently only notable for reaching the preliminary round (with 320 other amateur/semi-pro clubs) of the FA Cup. I don't see enough significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the GNG, and don't think a presumption of notability is reasonable when they haven't reached the FA Cup competition proper (it's a little unclear whether most editors believe qualifying rounds of a national cup merit a presumption of notability, but I think they do not). Jogurney (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 192 souls attended their 2016 preliminary round match which seems a little below where I'd expect the notability bar to be for their highest achievement. Jogurney (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not far off the attendance levels of some of the teams in the Welsh Premier League then ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By way of comparison, apparently Alabama high school (gridiron) football games draw thousands in attendance (and probably receive as much or more online coverage in local newspapers). Jogurney (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:NORG WP:GNG; signficant RS coverage not found. WP:FOOTYN is a project-specific essay and does not override community-wide policies and guidelines. Coverage is passing mentions and / or hyper-local, such as "match previews (1, 2) and match reports (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) in local media", which are insufficient for encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K.e.coffman: NORG technically does not cover sports teams: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups ... with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." However, your point about the lack of coverage sounds like you believe WP:GNG is not met.—Bagumba (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – per Number 57. The point of SNGs or similar guidelines is also to compensate for the lack of internet sources for older subjects, a time where local paper news was far more common. So while this case appears borderline, I am confident that further sources do exist, and I also agree strongly with the argument that using the guideline to ensure a set of articles that the reader will expect to be complete stays complete is preferable. Agathoclea (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Agathoclea: Which "similar guidelines" are you referring to for this AfD? WP:FOOTYN is an essay. Also, this is an existing club. Are you stating that offline sources were published in the past, but this subject's popularity has waned and online coverage does not exist here? Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A plan or explanation to guide one in setting standards or determining a course of action". Yes this is an existing club, but it has existed mostly pre internet. I am saying that in addition to reflective coverage and current internet coverage there will be additional dead tree coverage. The journey of the sofar accepted status has been outlined above. Agathoclea (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, you were refering to the English definition of guideline, and not Wikipedia's WP:GUIDELINE. Thanks for the clarification.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no SNG for football clubs. The only SNG that mentions them applies is WP:NTEAM, which specifically points to the GNG. I don't know how many times I have to say this before people stop treating FOOTYN as an SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kentishfootball.co.uk not reliable Barkeep49 called into doubt the reliabilty of this site above at 21:37, 14 August. This has been about the only site which has significant coverage, and both Insertcleverphrasehere and myself stated we were giving it's reliability the benefit of the doubt. However, this forum post, signed by the same person listed as the main contact at http://kentishfootball.co.uk, called it "as an expensive hobby, but now I have opened up a bank account to expand my “expensive hobby” into a business ... I attend at least two football matches in Kent every week, writing match reports, interviewing managers and bringing all the latest football news from the Garden of England." Without further evidence that independent sources consider him a subject matter expert, I would just consider this to be a personal blog, which are generally not reliable per guideline WP:UGC.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree - there's no reason to think this isn't a reliable source, as it's a writer able to write about the topic professionally who has been linked to by a number of local clubs. Furthermore you're discounting other sources with significant coverage like [32]. SportingFlyer talk 12:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• So it's a business, written by a professional author. It's a reliable source. Furthermore, as SportingFlyer explained, you're ignoring coverage in numerous other reliable sources. We're not discussing the notability of the author, only of the team. Sports columnists rarely get coverage in independent, reliable sources. That makes them non-notable, but it doesn't make the subject of their coverage non-notable. That's a ridiculous assertion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalism is not how we define a reliable source (see the many sources written by full time paid professionals deemed unreliable here). I do not feel comfortable with the information I know to say where on the reliability spectrum Kentishfootball is, but in general a single person operation is going to be less likely to be reliable given the lack of editorial controls. To be reliable this single person would have to be an expert acknowledged by reliable sources as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's also the Daily Mirror from 14 December 1967, Norwood News from 26 February 1954 and possible coverage from the Kentish Mercury. The british newspapers archive OCR isn't very good, so there's a number of possible hits - Norwood at least covered their results in the 1950's. SportingFlyer talk 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you SportingFlyer. Is the Norwood News from that era RS? I am unfamiliar with it and the Wikipedia article is about a different organization (unless a Bronx newspaper covered minor English football teams). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  They appear to be a reliable paper dating back to at least 1868, but may have gone out of business sometime in the 1960s. See [33] for a random day's paper I found on Google. Is the Daily Mirror the one that's unreliable and garbage, or is that the Daily Mail? I always mix them up. Smartyllama (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There is also coverage of the club's games in the News Shopper.[34][35] Number 57 14:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Lacking multiple sources GNG states that "multiple sources are generally expected", where a source is from a different publisher. The guideline WP:WHYN says: "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." In my opinion, a few local newspaper sources active in any given area is not enough sources to meet GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought the Daily Mirror was a national source. I could be wrong, though, I don't know British papers that well. Smartyllama (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Smartyllama: It is, you are quite correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment People are using the WP:GNG argument for deleting this article. However the article sites numbers different sources, including two national football publications, as well as several other sources which are independent and not related to the club. When combined, these sources fit all of the General notability guidelines as set out on the GNG page. Rillington (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see a number of !votes pointing to the existence of match recaps and the like as coverage. We generally discount routine sourcing like that (otherwise, we'd argue that every individual assn. football match, gridiron football game, baseball game, etc. could be GNG-notable). End of season summaries may be better as long as they are transformative (secondary), not just repeating how the club did but analyzing that further. --Masem (t) 17:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that match reports are routine coverage as far as notability of the players or matches; however, the fact that a club regularly has its games covered would indicate a level of notability. Generally there are two levels of coverage of football in newspapers – match reports for individual clubs and roundups for leagues. The former would indicate a level of notability for the club and the latter for the league. Number 57 19:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Number 57: What you're talking about is match coverage - either detailed coverage of a specific game or league round-ups, but whichever type of coverage is going to fall into that routine category. I think Masem is rightly noting the lack of more big picture coverage that would suggest a notable team - an indication that it's not just a match here and there of some interest but the team as a subject of coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Barkeep49: I'd be inclined to agree more if only the scores and nothing else were reported - that wouldn't make a team notable, but there's an essay at WP:NOTROUTINE which I agree with which says that continuous "routine" coverage of a team in feature articles about games demonstrates notability. SportingFlyer talk 03:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I've read that essay before (thanks SportingFlyer for bringing it to my attention) but I've certainly referenced its ideas before although not in sports. However we're not looking at week-in week-out coverage of their matches (unless I'm mistaken about the evidence). It's more like once or twice a season (or so), correct for a team that plays 30-40 matches a season? If so that doesn't fit my idea of continuous but could understand others who disagree. And I can find numerous American High School football teams who not only outdraw Cray Valley but have far more coverage every week (plus season previews/reviews). It feels like if this 100+ year old team were notable this whole discussion wouldn't be so hard but we're looking at an organization far down the pyramid and while they certainly exist Wiki's chosen a higher bar for inclusion that I'm just having trouble seeing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The U.S. high school argument is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison, as those teams can get five-figure crowds, and is a completely different notability standard than what we're looking at here. As I've stated, I think they meet the goal for inclusion. WP:GNG isn't a high a bar. As shown, they receive consistent local coverage for the competitions they play in, especially for the competitions they've gone on to win. The conversation's difficult because the club are right on the edge of where the teams in the pyramid are notable, and because they do receive coverage. (They've also just qualified for the FA Cup first qualifying round, one of the last 276 clubs in the competition - it's completely conceivable the top 300+ football teams in the country that invented football are notable.) SportingFlyer talk 04:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @SportingFlyer:You're right the HS argument was OTHERSTUFF and so I've now struck it. You're also right that it wouldn't be surprising if there were 300 notable English football club. I wouldn't be surprised if we actually already have that many articles. But that doesn't mean Cray Valley (bless their Paper Mill producing hearsts) are notabile. I will repeat that this is a club that has had a substantial chance of the time since England invented the sport to gain coverage (and thus notability). It feels like going back as far as we can what we find is the once or twice a season match coverage that doesn't suggest they're actually notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Barkeep49: I think we're at the point of respectful disagreement, then. They get covered more than once or twice a year, especially recently during their trips to the regional cup final. SportingFlyer talk 23:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Really? Another relist? What can be said that hasn't already been said? This is getting ridiculous. Smartyllama (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree this time. I think that the discussion as pretty much come to a logical close. Ignoring !votes contrary to policy, there is clearly no consensus as to whether the team passes GNG or not, it depends on how strict each editor wants to be about it, and how they assess the reliability of the very few sources that we do have, and also whether this sporadic match coverage even contributes to notability of the team (I and others don't think it does, but others disagree). I doubt that another week of discussion is going to change anyone's mind. If someone were to manage to get into a library and verify whether any of the applicable books/sources listed HERE contain significant coverage of the team, that could go a long way to settling the notability or lack thereof for this team. Until that happens, consensus will likely be split over whether the team meets the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had typed out a similar message and deleted it out of respect for traditionalprocess but I would agree that the community has weighed in at length on this topic. Kirbanzo are you willing to reconsider your relist and/or be an experienced editor in judging consensus and make a close (as I presume it will not be delete). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbanzo !voting instead would be of more value. Per the guideline WP:NACD re: an actual close, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above comments. SportingFlyer talk 01:26, 28 August 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) Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Otten[edit]

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

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

Does not meet either WP:NCOLLATH as a college football player or WP:NGRIDIRON as a pro football player. He did not win any national college football awards or get any non-WP:ROUTINE national media coverage. While in the NFL, he never appeared in a regular season or playoff game. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: I have found local news articles about Otten, such as this profile from 2010 and this from 2011 by the San Jose Mercury News, that could help this article meet WP:GNG. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 28 August 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) Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Grigsby[edit]

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

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

Fails both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. There is little more than WP:ROUTINE local news coverage from his college football career, and he does not meet any of the four core NCOLLATH criteria such as winning a national award. Also, he was only a practice squad member of an NFL team, so he doesn't meet NGRIDIRON. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I found out that Grigsby was a 2010 Phil Steele second-team Freshman All-American [36], thus possibly meeting the NCOLLATH criterion about winning a national award. If that's the case, then I would like to withdraw this nomination. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 August 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. It looks like all keep arguments have been effectively rebutted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Henry Baber[edit]

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

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

Failed candidate for U.S. Senate and former mayor of a non-notable city. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:N and other notability guidelines for his category. Google search turns up with his impeachment from last month, but that's only one event, so it may fail WP:BLP1E. Redditaddict69 13:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 13:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 13:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's more than just the 2018 impeachment cited in the article. Baber is also one of the most prominent members and candidates of the Mountain Party, a major political party in West Virginia, including being its first elected official. Bitmapped (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – But that doesn't demonstrate notability. An example of a similar article would be Rebekah Kennedy, the top-percentage-of-vote getter of any Green Party U.S. Senate candidacy, closed as a redirect after an AfD Discussion. This can be redirected to the WV Mountain party or merged, too. Redditaddict69 15:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the place he was mayor of does not give him notability. Failed candidates for senate are not default notable, and the coverage does not rise to a level to justify having the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable under WP:NPOL or WP:AUTHOR. I'd be game for a redirect to the party if the party is notable enough for an article. SportingFlyer talk 11:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete writes children's poetry, but not even close to passing WP:AUTHOR. Worked as college administrator. Elected mayor of a town of pop. 2,000. Local coverage of his election and brief mayoralty. Fails WP:POLITICIAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though he's a local figure and coverage is naturally from regional sources, coverage, though some of it for small-ish events, makes him pass GNG with flying colors: [37], [38], [39], a particularly good profile, [40], also quite good, [41], more about the town, on floods, "high drama"!, [42], [43], [44], [45], Q&A. I concur with Bitmapped. — Hameltion (talk, contribs) 20:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "particularly good profile" is a WP:MILL news report, the sources mentioned by User:Hameltion are event listings, and Routine campaign and political coverage. User:Hameltion, I started editing not all that long ago. At first, it seemed to me that lots of politicians, mayors, county commissioners, heads of state and municipal departments were obviously notable because there would be many articles in the local and regional press about their policies, campaigns, and accomplishments while in office. These people and the work they do are not only admirable, they are notable in REAL LIFE. However, at WP we have wored out standards, such as WP:POLITICIAN to screen out and keep articles only on POLS who attain certain stipulated offices and others of truly extraordinary accomplishment attested by WP:SIGCOV in regional and national publications, bookds, acadmeic journals and, well, other things that attest to notability. Looking at the rules is a good start, but it takes a while to figure out how they apply in practice. I hope you'll look at some other Politician AfDs, and see that we really are trying out best, and not without reasons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with your characterization that the 2006 report that has a substantial amount about Baber as "run of the mill". I also ask that you take a look at the information in this long piece about his party, other articles during his mayoralty, and of course the ridiculously in-depth reporting about his investigation and removal from office. Coverage from local sources is not by definition trivial. I would, with some reservations, compare the media coverage of this subject to Ed Jew and the latter halves of the Greg Skrepenak and Richie Farmer articles. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That "run of the mill" article isn't even about Baber though, it's about the town and briefly profiles the mayor in order to flesh out the article. SportingFlyer talk 02:17, 28 August 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amadu Sulley[edit]

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

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

The position is not intrinsically notable, and there is minor routine news coverage only except for the ONEEVENT indictment. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of any notability. Agree with nominator. If we had an article for every allegedly corrupt politician, we would be overwhelmed. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-references do not all point to a single event of corruption. They are spread out in the various times he occupied the position which gives him Wikipedia notability status.And again he is not a politician. Disagree with nominator Ataavi —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep- Per WP:SIGCOV ,Article content does not determine notability and therefore the nominator's argument that it leads to a one time indictment event and will make the namesake of the article not meet Wikipedia notability is wrong.Notability requires verifiable evidence and all references sited for the article Amadu Sulley,mostly put out Amadu Sulley as the subject of the article and not some pass-by mention hence proving his notability to attract news and press coverage. Per WP:GNG Admitted the article may have been created during the time his alleged misdoings where public talk,this does not go against any standards.The article is a stub and will be expanded with reliable material and hence from wiki policy must be protected. I support a keep for this African article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ataavi (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I struck the second !vote, we only get to "cast" one, but feel free to make comments. Sam Sailor 13:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. WP:POLOUTCOMES says: "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers." If the head of the election commission is considered the equivalent of a cabinet position, then perhaps the deputy chairperson passes a sub-cabinet official. I realize that the chair of the election commission is not actually in the cabinet, in part because they are probably supposed to be neutral, but countries often have officials who report to the national parliament such as an Auditor General or the chief elections official who have positions that are arguably equivalent to a cabinet minister. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Read WP:NPOL.It (Article and its subject matter) passes. Or K.e.coffman could help me see his point of view by pointing out and explaining a bit more.Ataavi.(talk)22:29,22nd August,2018.

• Comment:I believe silence from the other side asking for deletion , means the grounds of the argument for keep for this Ghanaian-related article stub is strong,and thereby the argument for keep should be upheld.Ataavi.(talk)13:32,2ndSeptember,2018.

Comment - that would be an erroneous conclusion. There is nothing here that has cast the slightest doubt on my assessment.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Its a fair and good conclusion, an article on an important public official in a country with a notable career.Passes WP:GNG.Remember article content is not sufficient to make judgement on notability.The article is a stub. References helps in this case. Moreover,the article is well linked to other Wikipedia pages. My past contributions show that I do offer services to wikipedia pages of Ghanaian concern.I vouch for the subject matter's notability.

Ataavi (talk) 08:12 , 3rd ,September,2018.

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of radiata animal orders[edit]

List of radiata animal orders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

'Radiata' is not a clade, is obsolete, and historically was defined in (very) different ways at different times, so 'formerly classified as Radiata' gives an undefinable list which cannot correctly be combined with modern classes, subclasses, and orders. In short, it's totally misleading. An editor removed the prod so here we are. I have added a table of alternative definitions to Radiata, which I think says pretty much all that is needed on the topic. The varying definitions at phylum level shown in the table in Radiata show exactly why the idea of creating a list at (modern) order level is a non-starter - the definitions are incompatible with each other (so no list is possible), and in addition translating Cuvier's 1817 classification into any list of 2018 orders which did not exist in his day makes no sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What a clear explanation and well-reasoned deletion nomination. I get tired of seeing the usual boilerplate, alphabet soup of unelaborated acronyms dropped at AFD without any regard to the specific content. It's nice to see an argument clearly based on an understanding of the subject matter.

  Could a redirect to Radiata still be useful? postdlf (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's good to hear. I don't think this is a plausible search term, and for the reasons I gave, Radiata does not provide any lists of animal orders either, so I favour deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, unless it can be shown that historical sources provided extensive lists of this sort that go beyond the outline definitions already added to radiata. That would make it encyclopaedic in my opinion, but the current list mapping modern groupings onto historical definitions is WP:OR. I'm not persuaded by the argument that contradictory definitions rule out this page. That could be handled by separate sections, but as I say, there needs to be proper sourcing first. SpinningSpark 23:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: what a well-reasoned argument, on both sides of the case. A model of clarity and logic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the rationale eloquently put forward by the OP and of Spinningspark. Artificially forcing modern taxa into this list is definitely WP:OR, especially as there were clear shifting sands of the meaning of the group, and no references have been put forward to support it. The summary at Radiata seems to suffice, and I agree there's little value in turning this into a redirect. I would not expect to find a "List of Vermes animal orders", but would expect to find a reasonable explanation of what both now-abandoned groupings meant to naturalists at the time, and over the centuries that followed. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nomination and the above remarks are sound and well-expressed. If Radiata were expanded with additional details from historical sources to the point that it became unwieldy, then I could see an argument for splitting off a list of some kind, but that seems an unlikely eventuality. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Spinningspark. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 17:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I disagree with Chiswick Chap's claim that " 'formerly classified as Radiata' gives an undefinable list which cannot correctly be combined with modern classes, subclasses, and orders. " Any group that has ever been included in "Radiata" [by a reputable source] would be in the category "formerly classified as Radiata". According to the article "Radiata", this would include ctenophora, cnidaria, myxozoa, placozoa, echinoderms and "parasitic worms". [I am aware that echinoderms and parasitic worms are bilaterians.] Also, his argument that radiata is "not a clade" is unimportant. After all, we have "List of reptiles". (Actually, "List of reptiles" is weakly sourced, with only a single reference.) Rather, the problem with this list article is the absence of a single reliable source with a clear list encompassing the last two centuries of classification systems. This makes the list article non-notable, while the main article ("Radiata") is notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:08, 3 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animal fantasy[edit]

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

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

This is WP:SYNTH; no sign this is commonly considered a genre of fiction. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:SYNTH/WP:A11. Too broad to be a specific genre - plenty of fantasy books involve what the definition for this "genre" says, yet aren't classified as such. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The title is overly vague and article is WP:SYNTH. Already discussed in Anthropomorphism#In literature._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:37, 2 September 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GMG^talk 19:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno Unified School District[edit]

Fresno Unified School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Utterly unnotable. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep? - It's a school district with more students than most small towns have people. There seems to be plenty of sources available to write a half decent article with, even though much/most of them are local. GMG^talk 19:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and develop being the fourth largest school district in California, and getting regular press from Fresno Bee [46] and others [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. School districts are territorial governmental units and are uniformly kept as "populated, legally recognized places" under WP:GEOLAND. See also WP:OUTCOMES#School districts and many, many AfD results consistent therewith. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. School districts are local governments with powers similar to that of a town or a county - as above: "populated, legally recognized places" Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's really difficult to look upon this nomination and AGF. TheAwesomeHwyh should either explain their actions here or withdraw this. Regardless if they do or not, it's pretty clear this can be closed down per WP:SNOW. John from Idegon (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to put this but I was unaware of WP:GEOLAND is there a way I can close this deletion nomination? TheAwesomeHwyh

Yes, you can opt to withdraw the nomination at any time because there has been no one so far in favor of deletion. GMG^talk 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok how do I opt out then? TheAwesomeHwyh

• I'd say your statement here is sufficient. I can close this as withdrawn in about 20 minutes if no one beats me to it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:11, 28 August 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. WP:TOOSOON and/or WP:BLP1E -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolatito Aderemi-Ibitola[edit]

Bolatito Aderemi-Ibitola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not yet notable. No evidence of work in museums or major galleries; no critical coverage; the prize is for "emerging" artists--that is, beginners, which is pretty close to the definition of not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Emerging" is significantly different from "beginner". The references in the article include coverage in a national newspaper of Nigeria, The Nation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are even more excellent sources in Gnews, in even better international publications! However they are all about the same prize and all published within the last month. Isn't that called WP:BLP1E?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one hundred percent of the sources I saw in an online search refer to the fact that this recent college graduate recently won a prize. This is a case of way way too soon, a case of a single event being the only RS available, and a case of an artist who does not meet WP:ARTIST. If she wins a Nobel prize, OK. Beyond the prize, she has no other accomplishments beyond being born and having received a university degree. I agree that emerging typically refers to fully trained artists at the beginning of their professional careers, rather than absolute beginners. Maya Lin was at the same stage of her career (actually she was in fourth year of university) when she was awarded the commission for the Vietnam War Memorial. She was trained, and emerging. ThatMontrealIP. (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 19:40, 4 September 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bradford[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG even if on the surface it looks like he could meet criteria #3 I could find only mentions in goodreads and blogs. The claim to being a bestselling author refers to amazon lists which don't count. None of the sources are in-depth coverage in RS at best there are interviews in blogs. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep article is overstuffed with PRIMARY sourcing. I ran a Proquest news archibve search on him, and what turns up is a modest number of articles, mostly in small British newspapers, about his running workshops for kids with a "Samuarai" theme, he has a children's book series Young Samurai (that page lacks sources.) I did find this brief review in the Evening Standard: "Normally, I'd give anything involving the martial arts a very wide berth but Chris Bradford's The Way of the Sword (Puffin, Pounds 6.99) is addictive. It's about an English boy, Jack, shipwrecked in Japan in the 17th century, adopted by a local warrior struggling to protect his father's navigational charts from a sinister ninja called Dragoneye. It occupies the same territory as Harry Potter, not least in that it's a boarding school story. Jack is training to be a samurai, and at the One School of Two Heavens he has loyal friends, including a clever girl warrior, and sneery, unpleasant enemies, one of whom is also engaged in an ancient competition called the Circle of Three. I could give you a list of parallels with HP but, believe me, there are heaps.(A CHILD'S WORLD, FULL OF GIANT MOTHS AND SAMURAIS: CHILDREN'S BOOKS McDonagh, Melanie. Evening Standard; London (UK) 09 July 2009: 34. [61] Kept searching and found a few more brief reviews, and stories in papers in India, Australia, and NZ, as well as some coverage of his books in the London papers, including rights sold to TV. I think there's enough to keep, albeit it will be a lot of work to turn bits of coverage into a properly sourced article. No profiles found. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that searches work using "Chris bradford" + Samurai, or "Chris Bradford" + Bodyguard. The latter in a gNews search brings up these [62], book reviews, a feature article in Publisher Weely, A Quartet of Titles Launches Chris Bradford’s Bodyguard Series . Page in desperate need of need upgrade, but this is a WP:SNOW KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no doubt that the books are notable. Given the lack of sourcing about Bradford as a subject (which I'm basing on Domdeparis's comments as I have not had time to seriously investigate) I'm not sure that it's a SNOW KEEP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We keep authors if their books are notable, even anonymous authors about whom we truly know nothing, and reclusive authors who do not give interviews. But click teh link marked [2] in my comment above, for several recent, reliable sources about Bradford. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per E M Gregory. James500 (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourcing exists, has multiple notable books. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per E.M.Gregory, Barkeep49, and James500. Simonm223 (talk) 10:43, 1 September 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: P. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priapus (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears nine times according to Marvel Wikia, and the page is not linked by any other articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: P. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a comics character he is important to many people who follow Marvel Universe. The character is also an important pop-culture link to the Greek god. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No information from reliable secondary sources to merge. Killer Moff (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No RS coverage and insignificant within the fiction. With no incoming links, there's no reason to save this information. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. A minor villain like this may deserve passing mention, but we don't have enough sources to warrant a full article. --Elfabet (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As others have noted, a footnote in the fiction. Could potentially be entered on the Marvel deities list but in no way needs a solo article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:05, 1 September 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. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Your Fire Tour[edit]

Hold Your Fire Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NTOUR, an article on a tour requires evidence of "notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not' sufficient to demonstrate notability." Except for various Rush fan forums, the tour has never received coverage independent of the affiliated album. I can find no reliable sources to demonstrate any notability for this tour as an entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 21 August 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. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Dutta[edit]

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

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

The sourcing is really thin and I'm not seeing WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The subject is not notable. The man wrote a thesis, won an award (NIASA), was nominated for one, NDTV Good Times showcased some of his works, and he received a Certificate of Appreciation from IIA. The first reference attests that the subject was "nominated amongst the top 50 next generation Indian architects" (not encyclopedia notable) and the next three (one IIA and two NIASA) are primary sources on non-encyclopedia significant awards. I am sure there are many "thousands" of field specific "national awards" in India so I can see nothing being "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.".

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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syamdhar[edit]

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

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

Fails subject notability guidelines by a mile.No significant coverage about the subject, except in promo-interviews and as name-mentions in the review of his two films.TOOSOON. ∯WBG^converse 08:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable. He is mentioned at Times of India, International Business Times India and other media. this International Business Times article says that his movie Pullikkaran Staraa is "is one of the most anticipated projects of the year." -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gprscrippers, you need to see WP:NOTINHERITED. ∯WBG^converse 06:40, 31 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hibbert[edit]

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

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

Notability concerns; a biography of a voice actor that is sourced entirely to the IMDb page. I don't see any significant coverage of his career that meets WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of IMDb, people have to do more than just appear in a few minor roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 11:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per .John Pack Lambert. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:17, 27 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Taylor[edit]

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

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

I'm unable to find sufficient independent secondary sourcing to sustain this biography. On the one hand much of the career took place pre-Internet so sources I haven't been able to find may exist; on the other, it does not seem to be material likely to have generated a lot of coverage (local radio host; small connections to more notable figures). Innisfree987 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable local radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Is it the first time that this article is nominated for the deletion? -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy declined my A7 a year ago; I should've just PROD'ed in the first place (my mistake) but after the declined speedy, entries aren't eligible for PROD anymore. So I left it a while just to see and there has been some tinkering, but no improvement as far secondary source coverage is concerned. Hence the AfD nomination. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:34, 27 August 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Youth League U13[edit]

2017–18 Youth League U13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. No coverage found and is very incomplete. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't believe a U13 league is notable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• G5 Delete Article created by suspected sockpuppet. Govvy (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Year that is one of the easiest to delete with the fact that it fails basically everything. Animation is developing 09:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable (WP:NSEASON and WP:GNG Hhkohh (talk) 02:53, 1 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youth league U13[edit]

Youth league U13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Not notable and no coverage found AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't believe a U13 league is notable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• G5 Delete Article created by suspected sockpuppet. Govvy (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: It was not confirmed as a sock in SPI, also speedy only applies to article that was created after block evasion. Matthew_hk tc 16:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply @Matthew hk: Okay, well, I just reported the creator to AIV, because he recreated a deleted article. Govvy (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Year that is one of the easiest to delete with the fact that it fails basically everything. Animation is developing 09:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fail WP:GNG. @Lugnuts: is only for season page Hhkohh (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough to merit a standalone article; youth leauges in general are already covered in All India Football Federation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:15, 2 September 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. Seems like there is reasoned disagreement about whether the sources here satisfy GNG criteria, although it's close to a "delete" outcome as most rebuttals by the keep camp are overall quite weak (WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, arguments that don't address whether the sources are actually qualified). Also, opinions on other editors' reading competence are not germane to an AfD, please keep them to yourself. See also WP:NPA Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nafez Assaily[edit]

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

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

Non-notable activist. Sourced to a couple of interviews, his homepage, and what would seem to be a self-authored bio. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he has multiple book mentions. 1, 2. And Newsweek magazine (accessed at Google Books) mentioned him at 1990 article (that is 28 years ago). -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions, random quotes, and some directory listings. None of these are in depth.Icewhiz (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO does not require any in-depth coverage. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I don't think the sources, especially the more recently added ones, reach the point of being trivial - they often devote several paragraphs to him and lay out his basic biography. Several such sources (which the article has, now) is sufficient to pass WP:BIO. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the added sources are not RSes, and many are brief blurbs and quotations - responded below with a complete analysis of each one.Icewhiz (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Books that mention him are not supportive of notability, they are:

• A Land Full of God: Christian Perspectives on the Holy Land]] by Mae Elise Cannon, the mention is brief and not usable because it inaccurately describes Assaily as "sociologist" and sources statements about him with two citations, one is to the "Library on Wheels," the organization Assaily is described as running, and the other is to: "Assaily, "Naffez Assaily's page". This is not a reliable source.
• Humanitarian Law in Action Within Africa, a scholarly book by a non-bluelinked author, Jennifer Moore, merely cites an article Assaily co-wrote.
• Connecting with the Enemy: A Century of Palestinian-Israeli Joint Nonviolence by Sheila H. Katz, mentions Assaily as founder of the ‘Library on Wheels for Nonviolence and Peace,' and quotes him, before being cut off by one of google's this-page-is not messages.
• India's Israel Policy by P. R. Kumaraswamy merely contains the statement, in the "acknowledgements" forward, "I interacted with a number of Palestinian figures including... Naffez Assaily..."

• These are mere mentions that fail to demonstrate notability, (if someone can access the rest of the mention in "Connecting with the Enemy," and considers it to me SIGCOV, I request that they copy out the full relevant text on in this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much of what in in the article is primary, and searches turn up passing mentions that, like material in article, is sourced to statements made by Assaily and not interdependently verified. Moreover, while there are hits in books and media, they are brief mentions, or, as in one case now on the page, a quote. He established a bookmobile called the "Library on Wheels for Nonviolence and Peace," but there is no indication that it was notable, or that it still exists. Fails WP:BASIC. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC) withdraw for lack of time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh come now, gentlemen. You, Gregory, have devoted extensive amounts of time to making wiki articles on even the most recondite incidents of Palestinian violence, scraping through memes repeated in provincial newspapers, and now repudiate the idea that an article on that rare thing, a Palestinian pacifist, should be tolerated on Wikipedia? Is this where NPOV lies?Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This needs a lot of cleanup, but sources that satisfy WP:BIO were pretty easy to find. (Note that the article has been substantially expanded in terms of sourcing since this AFD began.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aquillion: - the article does seem to look better following the addition of many citations since the AfD begun. However, lets look at the critically (numbered by the order under "Sources"):

  1. ref1 (Assaily 2004), ref2 (Assaily 2006), ref3 (Assaily, 2009), ref4 (Assaily, 1991) - all authored/co-authored by the subject (some are in non-RS). Do not establish notability in any shape or form.
  2. ref5 (Burrowes, 1991) - two sentence mention, citing Assaily's call for non-violence.
  3. ref6 (Cannon) - not sure if this would be a RS, however this is a one-sentence mention of him in the context of his organization facilitating a meeting.
  4. ref7 - incident report from Christian Peacemaker Teams. Most probably not a RS, in any event this is mainly about the family's grape arbor.
  5. ref8 (De Vries, Minke) - RSness doubtful. I don't have page 173 open on preview, however searching the Assaily via the google-search in the book brings up little, and it seems this is a short blurb as well.
  6. ref9 (peacereporter.net) - This does not seem to be a RS. In any event this is an interview - and a fairly short one. Interviews generally do not establish notability.
  7. ref10 (sfgate) - One of a few people interviewed for this piece. Interviews generally do not establish notability.
  8. ref11 (Nicoletta) - I have my doubts on the RSness here. Regardless - this is again an interview of Assaily and does not establish notability.
  9. ref12 (Hertog) - not about Assaily. He is mentioned as the director, and is quoted very briefly. RSness also questionable. Does not establish notability.
  10. ref13 (Mattar) - cites a paper author by Assaily once with a brief quotation. Does not establish notability in any manner.
  11. ref14 (1995 JPost piece) - not available online (and JPost's archive is online) - seems to be a mention of Assaily being interviewed in a film (which is already covered in ref10 (sfgate)) - not an indication of notability.
  12. ref15 (Katz) - part of a single paragraph (which itself is mainly on the Library), followed by a short quote.
  13. ref16 (Levin) - Very briefly thanked in the acknowledgements. Seems also to be self-published / non-RS - this is by Hope Publishing House. Does not establish notability in any form.
  14. ref17 (Moore) - mentioned in a list (as "Palestinian Sufi Nafez Assaily" with a citation of Assaily himself to back up his mention). 4 words do not establish notability in any form.
  15. ref18 (paxchristi) - probably not RS. In any case this a profile of the organization, and mentions Assaily precisely once as the contact (if you will - this also lists a phone number and fax number). Does not establish notability of the subject.
  16. ref19 (Schilling) - mention of job title, followed by a brief quote of Assaily. Does not establish notability.
  17. ref20 (Tessler) - His 1988 position paper is cited. No coverage of Assaily himself.
  18. ref21 (Walz) - I'm not sure of the RSness of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, however this piece is not about Assaily, it is about Awad. Assaily is mentioned in a single paragraph as replacing Awad - does not establish notability in any form.

• In short - it seems that every brief mention of this individual available online was added to the article. However, RS concerns aside, most of these are very brief blurbs, mentions, and very brief quotes - they do not establish notability. A couple of position papers he wrote in 1988 and 1991 get cited (scantily), he gave the odd interview, and facilitated meetings for visitors. This is a local librarian, running a small on-wheels library, and taking over the position of the more notable Mubarak Awad, who mainly in the 1990s was cited/interviewed a few times.Icewhiz (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep, ...search books.google.com, and you find Nafez Assaily mentioned in loads of books, as acting director of Mubarak Awad's Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence, based in East Jerusalem, or receiver of IBBY-Asahi Reading Promotion Award. Oh, I get it; "Most Palestinians are terrorists"....right....Huldra (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Citation overkill, article has been reference bombed with a large number of articles, including many that are passing mentions, it would be more useful to have added a small number of WP:RS containing WP:SIGCOV. It is hare to believe that an editor actually read all of these sources, or examined their reliability, in the time expended adding them. It would be of use to editors here for someone to bring a few persuasive examples of SIGCOV to this page.22:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)

To cite just one of the numerousarticles on Palestinian terrorism you write up, Death of Binyamin Meisner, 37 cites, almost all dealing with 2 moments, reportage of his death 1989, and reports of the prisoner release exchange decades later, involving his killer. He's not notable, but the ref stacking makes it look that way. I.e. double standards. Assaily has been regularly reported for 30 years in books and articles on peace activists.

First the objection was there are not enough sources. One supplies 21, several reliably published books, and the response is: too many sources. Let's look at the category of Israeli settlers, for comparable data.

• Ran Kadoch no references (footballer)
• Harel Moyal 1 reference (pop-singer) (escoday is a source?)
• Yossi Abulafia I reference (cartoonist, illustrator)
• Moti Yogev I reference (politician)
• Avraham Toledano I reference (politician)
• Kobi Moyal 1 reference (footballer) football site.
• Adi Konstantinos 1 reference (footballer)
• Mosheh Lichtenstein 1 reference (rabbi) ) (self-referential
• Emuna Elon I reference (authoress, activist)
• Aviv Hadad I reference (footballer)
• Baruch Gigi 2 references (rabbi)
• Eliezer Waldman 2 rreferences (rabbi)
• Golan Hermon 2 references
• Elyakim Haetzni 2 references
• Hagay Goldenberg 2 references
• Re'em Ha'Cohen 3 references
• Nissan Ben-Avraham 3 references
• Yaaqov Medan 3 references (rabbi)
• Sherri Mandell 3 references (author/activist)
• Haim Sabato 3 references (rabbi)
• Avi Rikan 3 references (football player) football sites
• Eli Cohen 3 references (politician)
• Abba Berman 4 references
• Amnon Weiss 4 references businessman
• Michael Malchieli 4 referencesd (politician)
• Hillel Horowitz references 4 references (rabbi)
• Zvulun Kalfa 5 references (politician)
• Faina Kirschenbaum 5 references (politician)
• Moshe Zar 5 references (religious Zionist)
• Gal Alberman 6 references
• Dudi Amsalem 6 references
• Itamar Marcus 6 references (activist)
• Yuval Cherlow 7 references
• Daniella Weiss 7 references (settler activist)
• David Wilder 7 references (settler activist)
• Shimon Sheves 7 references (politician) in cluding www.cybertalkblog.co.uk. And Roumanian website
• Alex Miller 7 references (politician) all Knsesset websites
• Shai Haddad 7 references
• Mike Guzovsky 7 references
• Aryeh Eldad 8 references
• Ron Nachman 8 references
• Shai Piron 8 referennces (rabbi/politician)
• Binyamin Elon 9 references
• Orit Strook 9 rerferences (settler female activist)
• Efrat Ungar 9 references (book illustrator, killed by a Palestinian) only two to Englisdh newspapers
• Roi Klein 11 references (soldier) most repetitive.

From Category Israeli rabbis. (Assaily is a religious figure as well)

• Ya'akov Asher 5 refs (rabbi, politician)
• Elazar Abuhatzeira 10 refs (rabbi)
• Yosef Azran I ref (rabbi)
• Yoav Ben-Tzur 5 refs (politician)
• David Danino 1 self reference
• Shlomo Dayan 1 ref (rabbi politician)
• Avraham Deutsch 1 ref (rabbi politician)
• Fred Düren (German converted to Judaism) 1 ref
• Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi 5 refs only 1 acceptable (rabbi)
• Moshe Ze'ev Feldman 1 ref (rabbi/politician)
• Reuven Feldman 1 ref (rabbi/politician)
• Simcha Friedman 1 ref (rabbi/politician)
• Julius Guttmann 2 ref (rabbi)
• Menachem Hacohen 3 refs (rabbi)
• Israel Hess 4 ref (rabbi)
• Maya Leibovich 8 refs, 5 unacceptable (rabbi)
• Eliyahu Leon Levi no refs (rabbi)
• Yair Levy I ref (rabbi)
• Yitzhak Levy 4 refs (rabbi/politician)
• Sivan Malkin Maas 7 refs 5 unacceptable by above criteria (rabbi)
• Moshe Maya 4 refs (two un acceptable . .)
• Uzi Meshulam 5 refs 3 unacceptable . .(rabbi)
• Nathan Mileikowsky 8 refs most trivial (rabbi)
• Moshe-Zvi Neria 5 refs 2 una cceptable. . (rabbi)
• Nachum Neriya 3 refs none acceptable (rabbi)
• Michael Rosen ) 4 refs (rabbi)
• Shimon Gershon Rosenberg 6 refs, none in English (rabbi)
• Moshe Zvi Segal 5 refs all obscure
• Avraham Steinberg 7 refs 4 obscure (rabbi)
• Yonah Sztencl 3 refs all useless (rabbi)
• Shmuel Yaniv 5 refs 3 useloess (rabbi)
• Yehuda Kroizer 4 refs, all invalid (rabbi)
• Efraim Zalmanovich 3 refs (rabbi)
• Zvi Eliezer Alonie 5 refs, mostly obscure Croatian sites (rabbi)

I.e. Why are you both deeply troubled about an article, well sourced, on a Palestinian peace activist of international repute? Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those meet SNGs (e.g. Yogev - a MK) and it would be easy to find several high quality sources for them - as opposed to this schoolteacher/librarian/activist. Adding several very low quality references - some self-authored, some non-RS, and some mentioning the subject in passing (in as little as 3 ([63] - "Contact: Nafez Assaily) or 4 ([64] - "Palestinian Sufi Nafez Assaily") words) - does not establish notability. Care to point out 3-4 actual RSes that discuss the subject in an independent (not an interview or self-authored) and WP:INDEPTH fashion?Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You think that 'many'(? how many) are SNGs. But you have no evidence. It's an opinion. What my little exercise aspires to show is that, were a POV warrior to set out thinking 'Jewish people' go for deletion of their wiki bios if they are undersourced, the result would be havoc. Sensible editors don't take out articles on technical grounds. They improve them. Assaily, despite all of these pseudo-objections, is manifestly significant in the relevant I/P peace activism area. My impression is this was targeted because (a) I wrote it and (b) the person is Palestinian. The arbitrary focus on him, rather than thousand of bio articles which are manifestly undersourced and dealing with, to date, people who have no international or even national profile, is very, very odd.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I provided an example (Yogev - MK), however to spell this out in relation to your WP:OSE list above - Ya'akov Asher, Yoav Ben-Tzur, Shlomo Dayan, Avraham Deutsch, Moshe Ze'ev Feldman, Reuven Feldman, Simcha Friedman, Yitzhak Levy, Moti Yogev, Eli Cohen (politician born 1949), Zvulun Kalfa, Shai Piron, Orit Strook are all patently trivial passses of WP:NPOL having served in the Knesset and thus meet "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" and are presumed notable (and it would be fairly trivial to provide better sources for them). Your first example - Ran Kadoch - trivially passes WP:NFOOTY and would be easy to source with the sport/gossip rags. I fail to see the relevance of calling out "POV warrior", "Jewish People", or the subject here being Palestinian. Prior to nominating this article - I did a BEFORE - and I saw very little (not too many instances in which he provided a random quote - and not all of that). Following the AfD nom, the article underwent Wikipedia:Citation overkill additions (which include passing mentions in a lists). Care to point out high-quality, in-depth, sources covering this individual? All I see is a school-teacher/library on wheels operator who replaced the founder of Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence (itself a very small outfit - and quite possibly non-notable - I doubt it would pass WP:NORG), who is quoted very briefly in RSes vis-a-vis his minor actvist role (and the scant coverage, such as it is, is mainly jointly with the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence).Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is that anyone in the world who manages to get elected in a state or national legislative for, say 4 years, and serves without distinction or reportage, or anyone who manages to play a couple of games of major league football, or tennis, ping pong, or beach volleyball, etc, is automatically someone whose wiki bio can't be erased, even if the person left no notable record of his performance other than a note in the archives of sporting papers or the respective archives of the Knesset, the Diet, Hungary's National Assembly or Nauru's Parliament, whereas someone mentioned in 10 RS books, and numerous newspapers over a thirty year period has to have his notability proven. Pull the other leg. The objections are pettifogging, policy cavils that, were they applied across the board, would automatically cause the deletion of tens of thousand of articles, without anything like the documentation we have here, whom no one has thought to contest. Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elected - even if serving 1 day. Also applies to Palestinian Legislative Council. The SNG states presumption of notability - and such individuals usually have copious media and (possibly subsequently) book references. I personally think NFOOTY frivolous, however it is policy - and soccer players do get coverage in RSes (various sport rags). Regardless - this is policy. Do you have any policy based argument for the notability of this individual? Saying WP:GHITS (which are low, by the way), or throwing out "10 RS books" (some are not RS, and regardless in all of them - these are passing mentions!) does not cut it in terms of meeting WP:SIGCOV. How about presenting the best 3-4 sources here?Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do all the flagwaving you want to. One often sees what one wants to see.Death of Binyamin Meisner for example. Would you ‘Care to point out high-quality, in-depth, sources covering this individual?’ or any others above. They don't in 98% of the cases exist. And all of these cavils are disregarded, partially, I believe, because they are not Palestinians. With Palestinians, one applies the nanoparticle sensitive microscope.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article subjects being or not being Palestinian is irrelevant from a policy perspective.Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, none of the above repetitive policy exclamations will have the slightest impact on the result of this deletion process. They are obviously barrel-scraping.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He runs a mobile library out of a truck. All the sources are passing mentions, short quotes, not reliable, or stuff he wrote himself, does not pass GNG.יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nishidani. Plus he does a lot more than just "runs a mobile library out of a truck". Enough verbiage already. --NSH001 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep this is a WP:SNOW situation if I've ever heard of one. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence. After taking the time to read the sources, and running searches, what I find is a man who makes himself available to meet with sympathetic foreign visitors foreign journalists and writers. They mention meeting him and sometimes quote him. The way they quote him varies oddly, he is not, for example, a "sociologist." What I am not finding is that the few things he has published have been cited in a way that makes him a notable scholar or writer. He is described as a "pacifist", although he likes to tell visitors about his "incessant" activity removing concrete security barriers and teaching children to remove them. He is usually described as running a bookmobile stocked with pacifist books. It is far from being a notable institution. He was a follower of a more notable pacifist, Mubarak Awad who founded the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence, where the far less notable Assaily followed him as director. I suggest we selectively merge Assaily there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are using a double standard. To take but one example, in one of your endless articles on Muslim/Palestinian violence, namely 2016 Jerusalem shooting attack it came up for an AfD and I argued there that the substance of that article was already fully available at the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 here. Since your article already was covered in a comprehensive list, why the independent page? You didn't want a merge. After all this is an incident where a Palestinian resorted to violence, and deserved a separate page. Here, you want to merge this wiki bio, making out the author is not an independent subject, someone who nonetheless for three decades of individual activism has been cited by at least 12 book RS. You wish to drown him in the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence article, which was created by someone else, and which Assaily oversaw for some years, while then branching out on a different career. What you appear to be implying is: let's merge Palestinian articles on peace-makers/peacemaking, and multiply articles on Jewish victims of Arab violence. This is obvious POV pushing. In any case, this article has an aesthetically unified, comprehensive overview of the subject, and to mash it into another article which no one has seriously worked yet, would create aa eyesore, besides jarring two discrete entities, a peace activist, and an institution which he was once a director of, only part of his larger story. The obvious merge is of Mubarak Awad with the centre he created, and not that centre with Nafez Assaily. Finally, this article is 26,399 bytes long -near the optimal high end for a biography of this kind. To conflate it with any other article would only induce confusion and tedium (WP:TLDR) in the reader.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The objections here are unrelated to policy concerns, which have been thoroughly addressed by the article's revision.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy concern is the lack of notable accomplishment, beyond getting quoted "as a Palestinian" by visiting writers. Lack of WP:SIGCOV of anything he has actually done, beyond giving interviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article, please- You think providing tens of thousands of poor children and youths in a war zone with inadequate access to media a free access to ideas of peace, or being regularly invited throughout Europe and North America to talk of peace and conflict resolution, is not notable, the world thinks otherwise. If you are a Palestinian who murders someone you can get an immediate wiki bio ort incident showcasing. If you are a Palestinian who works to avoid such scenarios, you are threatened with wiki erasure.Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - and obviously so. Im not sure the delete voters are actually looking at the same article and its sources, but even a cursory look at them shows coverage across a range of sources over a range of time. nableezy - 22:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This AfD has become ridiculous and for the most part ignores the question: is this person sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG? I really appreciate IceWhiz's review of the sources, but WP:GNG isn't that high of a threshold, and while this is a valid nomination and borderline call I'm convinced by a couple of the articles get him over the line, particularly the Weekly Standard, German language article, and Peacereporter.net articles. SportingFlyer talk 13:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't reply point for point on Icewhiz's 'impressive' research. This consisted in examining 18 sources (10 of which are RS books) which cite Assaily and then asserting that each cite does not establish notability. That is so farcical a procedure as the mere assertion that in his view this or that might not be RS, than I didn't bother to reply. But I'll give you one exemplary instance of why his 'analysis' is totally unreliable.

Hertog) - not about Assaily. He is mentioned as the director, and is quoted very briefly. RSness also questionable. Does not establish notability

Katrien Hertog devoted a very long piece on Assaily’s work. I don’t know whether this malicious caricature is deliberate or not, but the downloaded article runs to 44 pages, entirely devoted to her analysis of Assaily’s Library on Wheels for Non-violence and Peace Association – LOWNP, which is mentioned 249 times. What apparently Icewhiz did was not read the piece, but rather google rapidly a keyword through it. Even then he got things wrong. He is mentio ned 60 times: 6 as Assaily and 54 times as Nafez. I.e. Icewhiz is not a reliable analyst. He didn’t read the source, and his judgements on the others are just obiter dicta.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nishidani, please refrain from personal attacks. SportingFlyer talk 05:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt a personal attack, it is a fact. Icewhiz made a statement about a source that is flat out wrong. Either Icewhiz did not actually read the source or Icewhiz lied about it. Nishidani chose the more flattering of the options. nableezy - 17:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with Icewhiz that particular article is more about the association than the subject, and there's a legitimate question as to whether it's a WP:RS or not. SportingFlyer talk 17:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more about the association, but the claim that he is only quoted briefly would only fly if you only looked at where is quoted as "Assaily", however there are 54 more mentions of him as "Nafez", many of those quotes. He is in fact quoted quite extensively throughout the piece. That is where the so-called analysis shows itself to be a result of not actually reading the source. That or lying about it. Again, Nish offered the more flattering of the two. And regardless, there is nothing in his comment that can be called a personal attack, making that warning is totally without basis. nableezy - 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not without basis at all. I've participated in many an AfD and have rarely seen a criticism of a specific user in this manner. I understand this is falls into an area users might be passionate about, but it's not at all helpful to the discussion. SportingFlyer talk 01:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is jack's complete lack of passion about this topic. Somebody made a statement about a source that was flat out wrong. They either did not read the source or lied about it. Saying that is not a personal attack. It is not personal and it is not an attack. And, by the way, this entire conversation, from your initial comment, does not belong on this page. nableezy - 21:25, 1 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Adegoke[edit]

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

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: passes WP:SPORTSPERSON, by winning the 39th CBN Tennis Championship (Seniors category), the oldest active tennis tournament in Nigeria.HandsomeBoy (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I removed the PROD because I thought she stood a chance of skating past GNG from the article's eight sources (or specifically, these [65][66][67][68]). But HandsomeBoy's rationale is better. I would also expect that "highest ranked tennis player in the women's single category" in Nigeria should cover it, but I'm not a sports expert. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How are any of those sources WP:NOTROUTINE if they only report the results of those events? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Top ranked player in her country, and enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. PamD 08:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Citing WP:SPORTSPERSON is misinterpreting policy, see the wikilinked guidelines WP:NTENNIS/WP:NSPORTS, this person does not meet guidelines for notability in tennis. Its quite possible to be top ranked at a fairly low amateur standard in some countries. This doesn't make for notability by wikipedia's standards. As this person has not competed at a level, which meets standards for notability in tennis, they do not meet WP:GNG. WCM_email 09:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you expand on what you mean by "Citing WP:SPORTSPERSON is misinterpreting policy"? I don't follow. Note that WP:NTENNIS says "Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if" not "Tennis figures are notable iff". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you follow the wikilink WP:SPORTSPERSON it links you to WP:NSPORTS, which provides guidelines for individual sports. WP:NTENNIS takes you straight to the notability guidelines for tennis players. This defines notability as:

Further information may be found at WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. As I said you've applied an overly broad guideline in an inappropriate manner, missing the detailed guidance for notability. WCM_email 20:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am able to read. I noted that the guideline uses "if" rather than "if and only if" – to spell this out, "these are some of the ways in which notability can be demonstrated, though they're not the only ways". I disagree that the application of the guideline is inappropriate, but I don't deny that that's a valid opinion so let's leave it here. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notwithstanding the above discussion about WP:SPORTSPERSON, the sources provided in the article are sufficient for WP:GNG. Ralbegen (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's important to take account of notability at the national level.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG based on these three profiles of her: [69] [70] [71]. Still disagree with Bilorv on any or all of those four sources above conferring GNG. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religious sister (Catholic)[edit]

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

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

POV-pushing. An earlier discussion on Talk:Nun went to a consensus not to do difficult about the small distinction between Nuns and religious sisters. But here the author effectively hijacked a redirect to push his POV. Now that he was caught red handed, he moved it to another title. Still there is no need to separate this from Nun. The Banner talk 14:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nun and eventually merge anything that isn't already there. As it says on that page "The new legal code of the Catholic Church which was adopted in 1983, however, remained silent on this matter. Whereas previously the code distinguished between orders and congregations, the code now refers simply to religious institutes.". If the Catholic legal code groups them as one and the same who are we to go against the Holy See? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. @The Banner: Which "earlier discussion on Talk:Nun" are you referring to? The discussions there had to do rather with renaming the Nun article, here and here. In the latter, note the support for adding a separate article such as the one here which you propose for deletion.

And @Domdeparis:, the Code of 1983 did not presume to decide the question of who will be called nuns and who will be called religious sisters except for always referring to "monastery of nuns", never monastery of sisters. They are all religious institutes, which is a generic term, but that doesn't mean that those inside the institutes are not distinguished as nuns, sisters, monks, brothers, friars,... . Note the pivotal statement in the lead: "When bound by simple vows, a woman is a sister, not a nun." Jzsj (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source that you added [72] seems to be a little confusing because it says "For example, the Visitation Sisters are technically cloistered nuns but teach school" From what I can gather it has a lot to do with when the institute was created. I may be wrong but those belonging to the institutes etablished after the Fifth Lateran Council take simple vows and those belonging to the older institutes take solomn vows but they are basically the same because they all "take the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; live in community in a convent; and share in a particular apostolate." As it says in the sources sisters are called nuns and nuns are called sister by the general public and there are orders of nuns who are known as Sisters. There seems to be no legal difference now because if we can believe Solemn vow "...under the 1917 Code solemn vows rendered a subsequent marriage invalid, but simple vows only made the marriage illicit, the current Code of Canon Law states that "those bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage" and "Renunciation of the right to own property is now a matter for the constitutions of the religious institute in question and is associated not with the solemnity of the vows but with their perpetuity. " As both simple and solemn vows can be perpetual the same rules apply. So apart from the name what is the real difference if there is no legal difference and some nuns can work like sisters and very few orders remain cloistered? I would say there is not enough material to warrant a WP:SPINOFF and the actual state of affairs with a section that explains the difference is enough. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The arguments you raise show that things are in transition, as the 1983 Code acknowledged, but not that religious sisters, who are currently doing apostolic work and don't live in a monastery, want to be confused with monastic nuns. They usually don't, as the lead of the article on Religious sister (Catholic) makes very clear. As those who wish to be known as sisters, not monastic nuns, almost always call themselves "sister" on their website and in their Wikipedia articles, we should respect that and not link them to an article on nuns. This was proposed by several persons in the discussions on the Talk:Nun page, and still remains valid. Jzsj (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This can be explained in the Nun page. I would suggest that if you feel that the title is in some way injurious to either sisters or nuns then you should make a move request WP:RM#CM. Here you are making some pretty general assumptions about what many many thousands of women want and you are taking an advocacy stand and trying to right great wrongs. This is an encyclopedia we also work as a community and it is the community that decides. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you making the assumption that in calling themselves' "sister" that they would just as soon be called nun. And you seem to be ignoring the great emphasis on the distinction in a couple sources in the lead. I trust that we will wait for fuller community participation in this discussion, that affects so many women and informs the public on possible confusion of Catholic sisters with monastic nuns, as distinguished by the Code of 1983. Jzsj (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jzsj, are you familiar with WP:Battleground and WP:POINT? It may be helpful to you to read those two articles. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: This particular article does not warrant speedy-deletion. It is far better sourced than comparable content in the Nun article where the Nun#Distinction between a nun and a religious sister is discussed. There is perhaps a bit of original research in the final paragraph where states the 1983 Code mentions "nun" in passing (and/or states that the 1983 Code is silent on the matter), however this issue also exists in the Nun article. Even if the 1983 Code eliminates the formal difference, the prior distinction may still be historically notable. Arguments about whether sisters object to being grouped with nuns must be well sourced (references to "respecting" self-identification on the order's websites constitutes original research). However, the deletion of the article must rest on whether the sources adequately assert that "religious sisters" are notably distinct from nuns. – 23:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Additional Comment: There are comparable articles for Munk, Friar, Religious brothers that may aid in discerning whether Religious sister is notably separate from Nun. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your helpful comments. I'd ask, is the number of links to Religious sister compared to the number of links to Nun in Wikipedia (assuming that this is a part of the stored data) admissible as evidence to justify giving sisters their own article, not a subsection of the nun article? I read at WP:OR that: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Can this not be used as evidence on this deletion page, and if so how might we access that statistic? I do agree with your last sentence, that the clinching arguments should be like those in the lead that point out the ongoing distinction between sister and nun. Jzsj (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend whether you can show that the context in the originating article demonstrates that the outbound link was targeting the specific topic of Catholic religious sisters, and not women religious in general. It would have to be a significant number of links for the argument to carry weight. The raw number of inbound links is not useful without the context of the originating article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point would be that there are hundreds of sisters and sister's congregations that prefer to call themselves sisters, and so be linked to sister rather than to nun (which is not what they call themselves). Jzsj (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about what a reader would expect when clicking the link to "religious sister"; would they expect the full article discussing women religious, and the place of active congregations within that context, or just the narrowly focused article here. –Zfish118^⋉talk 02:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the lead to this article makes clear, most sisters do not expect to be discussed under the title of "nun", which has always and still does suggest the monastic, not the active life. Like in so many articles, for those who wish to learn more about sisters, I would suggest moving some of the material on Nun/Christianity/Roman Catholic to here with briefer coverage there, as it presently serves as a summary article with redirects under Buddhism, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicanism; Catholicism also deserves a redirect to a more ample article, where the United States and Canada could be included with their present redirects. These articles can only grow over time, and it's due time to use the Nun article as more of brief directory to a much larger group of articles. One might also reopen there the question of including "sister" in the title, considering what is learned here on the separate history of the term. But I don't see further extending the Catholic coverage at Nun when it already greatly exceeds that of other groups there. Jzsj (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources sem quite clear about the distinction, especially historically. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. As already stated above, there is a clear distinction. Also, to be honest, I am surprised that this article is being nominated for deletion. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is to explain the complexity and diversity of the world, not generalise it. Grouping all vowed religious women together as nuns or as a subset of nuns is not recognising the complexity and diversity of this world. In addition, the words used to explain why this article was proposed seem to be more concerned with the person creating the article than the article itself. Pjposullivan (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As poster above. The subject seems to merit its own article and is well explained and sourced XyzSpaniel Talk Page 19:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The distinction is discussed in secular academic sources, eg [73]. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found similar distinctions in scholarly work as Billhpike. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is enough independent coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nuns and sisters appear to be different things. In addition to what has been said already, one finds sources expressly denying that they are the same thing in unambiguous language: [74]. Even if I was wrong about this, deletion would still not be appropriate for a plausible redirect with mergeable content. James500 (talk) 07:06, 2 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiaki Arai[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator with an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Article can be recreated if and when article meets said requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:14, 4 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keisuke Ono[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator with an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, fails GNG and NFooty, although if he makes his debut then Keep as J3 is a fully pro league now. Govvy (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, with no prejudice toward recreation or undeletion should WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG be met in the future. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Article can be recreated if and when article meets said requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:14, 4 September 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 and redirect to List of chess variants. However, I'll hold off on actually deleting the page for a couple of days to allow for a merge. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flying chess[edit]

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

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

Chess variant with no notable coverage outside of specialist encylopedias (one online, one book). Does not pass the WP:GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia (a general encylopedia). See outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy (chess variant), suggest same remedy, redirect to List of chess variants. LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia is not a general encyclopedia, at least according to the five pillars. Meanwhile I see no reason why two reliable sources is not enough for an article. Particularly where both are in-depth and one is an encyclopedia. There are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. That other discussion is not comparable because that was an instance of an article cited to a single source, which obviously fails WP:GNG. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess was redirected to List of chess variants despite having a wider base of sources. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeSurl: Since that article was deleted several users have expressed views that it should not have been deleted. Certainly I would have voted keep had I been involved in that debate. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was a keep in that discussion, though for me 3check got notability from its play at Chess.com and Lichess, which aren't applicable here. I'm trying to work out where the line falls regarding what makes a chess variant notable. A lot of chess variant articles were created on the assumption that a mention in Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants automatically makes it notable. On examination (and tested in those two AfDs), that precedent isn't really viable for an article-each basis - there are literally thousands of variants which get a paragraph in that book.

The Chess Variant Pages is basically the other wide-ranging source with thousands of entries. Users can make submissions [75] & [76]. These submissions are reviewed, but I can't see much evidence that there's any filtering for notability, indeed it looks like the site encourages people to submit newly created variants before they've had much, if any, play.

I'm hoping as a community we can work out some standards regarding chess variants, and having some test-cases regarding Pritchard's encylopedia and The Chess Variant Pages would be helpful towards this. For me, The Chess Variant Pages is effectively a wiki on a specialist topic, and inclusion there is not a good measure of notability. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like my understanding of what Wikipedia is supports keeping most articles like this. You have explained your points well and I don't disagree with your analysis of the sources and how they are put together. The main thoughts I have is that I feel Wikipedia should in most situations cover specialist topics when there are reliable sources to meet the core content policies. I don't see a clear mandate to curate topics by their relevance except for topics prone to spam and promotionalism. If we are looking at relevance, it is true that chess variants are generally niche topics with a relatively low proportion of players and literature compared to the traditional game. I will just say that although I can see the point you are making I am still voting to keep the article. I don't think I have a clear preference towards the unknown number of articles chiefly cited to Pritchard's works, I suppose my preference would be chiefly to keep. The policy is clear that a second source is required at the minimum so any cited only to Pritchard's should be deleted, likewise any article cited only to The Chess Variant Pages should be deleted. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect - unless someone can show some other sources beyond Pritchard, this looks to fail WP:GNG. Chess Variant Pages may serve to verify certain uncontroversial facts here and there, but fails as a reliable source that would add to notability. Anybody can add their own game. It is WP:UGC with apparently minimal editorial oversight, making it about as reliable as imdb. Regardless of whether or not it could be used to verify an uncontroversial fact, something that will publish information about any game is not something to be used for notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've clarified "and redirect" aabove. Delete before redirect given the promotional nature of the text. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As the article says, this variant "was invented by Dr David Eltis in 1984. Eltis is also a noted historian of the Military Revolution" (at Eton). As it happens, among this article creator's few other edits are contributions to military history and Eton, as well as the AfD of an article on Eltis himself (which had to be repeatedly deleted). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Reading the AfD was eye-opening. I noticed that the invention of Flying Chess was used as an argument that David Eltis was notable. But the article about him was deleted in spite of, or perhaps partly because of, the three "keep" votes by shadowy accounts who had not contributed to Wikipedia until that day. "Spam and promotionalism", but Flying Chess is still with us after 12 years. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Exactly one GBook hit other an Arthurian story and a lot of accidental juxtapositions. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Almost every section of this article has no sources. I also agree with Rhododendrites on the fact that it's inventer isn't notible himself. I'm not saying that Croatia can't put this on [List of chess variants]], though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JACKonWIKIS (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• possible keep Merge and Redirect to List of chess variants (as done with Troy (chess variant)) -- I spent about an hour looking through the potential WP:RS and this is very much on the boarder-line. I'll post what I found in a minute and see if you all think it is enough. I just put notices on the talk page of List of chess variants that has 148 watchers and chess that has over 1,000 watchers.