< 10 February 12 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grebe Lake (Alaska)[edit]

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

The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge contains dozens of lakes. A few of them are notable, being large and accessible. These lakes are neither of those things, they are in a swampy muskeg area off the road system dotted with numerous tiny lakes. There is little to say about them other than that they exist, which is all these articles do say. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked but was unable to locate a lake-specific notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep all.Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Lakes are "notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." Plenty of sources exist for all three. One has a state recreation site. Another has a nearby airport named after it. These are not minor or disputed features but substantial geographic areas. Clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep? really? Could you produce some evidence to back up literally any of the claims you have just made? (even then WP:SK wouldn’t apply, but it’d be something anyway) In particular, I’m unclear on how one of these remote lakes already inside a protected area has it’s own state rec site? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked myself, you need to refine your search parameters. Grebe Lake airstrip is a private runway that is a few hundred miles from KNWR, on the other side of Wasilla. And Moon Lake State Rec Area is even further away, near Tok, closer to Canada than to KNWR. There are tens of thousands of tiny lakes in Alaska, and names get repeated. This discussion is about the three lakes by these names inside KNWR, which is on the Kenai Peninsula. None of them are on the road system at all, let alone have their own airport. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t think so. Again, there are dozens of tiny lakes in this area. There are over three million lakes in Alaska as a whole, listing them all would be madness. Even listing the named ones would be over three thousand entries. Have a look at this map for an idea of what this area is like. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that map and the fact Alaska is a vast wilderness, it would be insanity to create a list of every lake in the state. According to WP:GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." If a lake is notable 9 times out of 10, this is one of those cases where it is not, there is no evidence that any other information other than the location of these lakes exists.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. ansh666 00:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Jharkhand mob lynchings[edit]

2017 Jharkhand mob lynchings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Jharkhand mob lynchings Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

FailsWP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Article was created by an undisclosed paid editing sock who is still socking.[2][3] Capitals00 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:34, 12 February 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. ansh666 00:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Down With Disney's Treatment of Franchises and Its Fanboys[edit]

Down With Disney's Treatment of Franchises and Its Fanboys (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 group. There are a moderate number of entries in Google that support the action the group took against Disney, but they are not of substance or in-depth about the group. reddogsix (talk) 22:20, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Saigal[edit]

Gopal Saigal (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)

Prod was removed by original editor. Not wiki worthy. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Deletion log); 16:18 . . SoWhy (talk | contribs) deleted page Gopal Saigal ‎(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1555080/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm (TW)“ MensanDeltiologist (talk) 13:49, 12 February 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 Monumental crosses. Any sourced material may be merged from page history. ansh666 00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest crosses[edit]

List of tallest crosses (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)

Duplicates information in article 'Monumental crosses' Robynthehode (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monumental crosses contains 12 crosses, while List of tallest crosses contains 32 entries and additional information like the construction year. Only 9 entries are in common. So it's no duplicate.
You may have a look at de:Liste von hohen Kreuzen (list of high crosses). This is an updated version of List of tallest crosses, 100% verified and referenced and with additional information. --PM3 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I think this list should not be deleted, but both lists should be merged - after chosing some meaningful definition. "Monumental crosses" is not clearly definable, and "tallest crosses" is OR, as the list is incomplete. --PM3 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 12 February 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. ansh666 00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Konan[edit]

Christ Konan (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 Moldovian football player with zero mentions at Google News. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:46, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Hakeem[edit]

Neem Hakeem (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)

One of dozens of rapidly created articles that are unsourced (yeah, youtube is garbage) and I can find no evidence this meets WP:NFILM. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:36, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If God Ate Fried Chicken[edit]

If God Ate Fried Chicken (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 play that has zero mentions both at Google News and Google Books. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:44, 13 February 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, given improvements to the article. Clearly meets notability, and BLPCRIME does not apply since these people have been convicted of crimes. ansh666 00:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax child sex abuse ring[edit]

Halifax child sex abuse ring (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 declined a prod with the concern "notability, lack of sources, as per WP:NANP.", as I expect this nomination to be somewhat controversial.

In addition to those reasons, there are WP:BLPCRIME concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources document that numerous men sexually abused young girls. Satisfies WP:N and WP:RS No coverups, Edison (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Limited references, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, 2 references used to fill an entire article is absurd, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper we cannot provide an article for every single crime when there are little sources and coverage, as per wiki rules it should go.Americatcp (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We dont base our opinions on what other articles are available etc. It is based on a article to article basis. And guidelines. That there are two sources are irrelevant as long as the sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Yorkshire Post is hardly reliable, it cites numbers but then doesn't give evidence for how those numbers came to be? It's almost as bad as citing the DailyMail.Americatcp (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, looking closer at it the whole article is innacurate, the "gang" only abused one girl, while a single perpetrator abused another individual, "Another victim was also sexually assaulted by one of the gang members."[1]. Not only that, but the BBC doesn't cite any numbers like the Yorkshire Post does, again, with no mention of how it came to be. The entire article is wrong, it says over 100 from an unreliable source, and mentions two victims of the gang when it was a single victim.Americatcp (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Egregious objection.

1. You put scare quotes on gang, as if a child getting raped by a gang of 25 men were not a horrendous gang action.

2. You accuse the Yorkshire Post of not being a WP:RS. Go and read its Wikipedia entry, and then come back.

3. You are engaging in WP:OR by questioning the figures cited by the WP:RS, and worse yet, not providing sources for your speculation. Since the WP:RS states the gang was composed of over 100 men, this must be the case, and it is not up to you to speculate why only 25 of the men were actually accused in a court of law. Surely you are aware that prosecutors do not usually charge all perpetrators?

4. You dismiss the fact only one member of the gang was convicted of raping a second victim and in your opinion this disqualifies the whole thing. Let me ask you: if a murder of crows eats a plate of cereal with one cherry on top, do you then say, "it is inaccurate to say the murder of crows ate the whole thing, because the murder of crows ate the cereal, but only one crow must have eaten the cherry"?.XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s literally the guidelines for Wikipedia. If the gang was only convicted for creoles against one individual, then the article should reflect that. If a gang murders one man, but then a single member murders another, the gang hasn’t murdered two men.. you understand how that works correct? Convictions are what should be reflected, not opinions such as your own.Americatcp (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still not notable to any serious degree, while abhorrent, if we include crimes against a single individual with a Wikipedia article there would be thousands upon thousands.Americatcp (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-36559092
  2. ^ Lizzie Dearden (12 January 2018). "Police arrest 20 men for alleged involvement in Calderdale grooming gang". The Independent. Retrieved 7 February 2018. This week's arrests were part of the same investigation, which centres on allegations made a woman who was the victim of sexual abuse as a child in the Halifax area between 2006 and 2009.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME reads «For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.» First, the only names included are those of the men who were convicted of raping "Jeanette". Second, WP:DINC. If anyone wants to raise a discussion on the list of convicts (whose photos, names, and convictions were widely disseminated by the BBC[1] and other WP:RS[2]), then take it to the TP. Deletion is not cleanup.

WP:NOTNEWS reads "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This case has been already covered for 3 years across many WP:RS. It meets the criteria for "enduring notability" plus an additional 20 men were arrested a few weeks ago for the same case. Besides, this is clearly not "routine news reporting" on "announcements, sports, or celebrities". This is routine news reporting across years on a major crime and therefore WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. XavierItzm (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - a large grooming / sexual-abuse ring is definitely not routine news reporting. The appropriate guideline is WP:NCRIME which clearly states "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". Claiming all or most crime is NOTNEWS (which is worded and intended for routine events - such as weather, sports announcements, etc.) - is a misapplication of policy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::: And yet it didn't make international news, or even national news hardly, it was covered by 3 of the cited news articles as local news.. it's not a misapplication, your bias is showing.RomanskiRUS (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTNEWS, no scandal, no cover up, we cannot include every single incident of rape or child abuse, it's not worthy of an article. Concur with K.e.coffman 's comments. Americatcp (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What strikes me, is the large numbers of people involved. This does seem notable and unusual for just the shear volume on incidents and people involved. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment- um no? WP:NEXIST May well apply but it doesn’t make it worthy of an article when there’s no lasting social difference or even national news. WP:NOT and WP:BLPCRIME are why it should go.Americatcp (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • um, yes, it does apply and refute the Deletionists rationales for deletion based on sources.BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concerns listed as warranting deletion of this article were (a) notability, (b) lack of sources, and (c) WP:BLPCRIME, which I will address in reverse order.

(c) BLPCRIME says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". Convictions have been secured in this case, so BLPCRIME cannot be a valid concern.

(b) I count six sources in this article, as follows.

I cannot speak to all of them but am pretty sure that at least three are reliable.

(a) I was unfamiliar with the problem of child sex abuse rings in Britain until just a couple of weeks ago, when I happened upon the Rotherham case as a result of other reading. Since then I have read quite a bit about this phemomenon and see no way an instance of its occurrence may be deemed "not notable". A search of Wikipedia itself turned up the following list.

I believe it would be a mistake to delete any of these articles unless and until their material is incorporated elsewhere within Wikipedia. Dayirmiter (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim above that it made "international news" is wrong, it didn't even make "national" news. 3 of the cited sources are local newspapers, hardly national news at all. This is literally WP:NOT it's just not notable, no lasting impact, no scandal as per other comments, no cover up, and only a single victim. Per Dayirmiters comments, the "problem" of child sex abuse rings in Britain?? are you sure?? because do we include every single case of this happening in the US and say "the US has a problem of kids being abused!!" such as this report from Tennesee[3] or the one in the Tri state area with children as young as 11?[4]. There is no "problem" in Britain, and if there is then the United States has one considerably worse but yet has no articles on it. Your bias is showing. as per other comments in this thread... "remember GNG, a guideline, does not supersede WP:NOT and WP:BLP" by TheGracefulSlick. And they are correct, the article should go, it's not notable and not news.RomanskiRUS (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um no.. it does not. There was no national news scandal, no tabloids, no "international" news of any sort. This is fact, and looking at the sources within the article, 70% are local news only, clearly a lack of impact and lack of notability.RomanskiRUS (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS report that police said the Halifax case was the largest child sexual exploitation investigation in the U.K. – "bigger than high profile cases in Rochdale and Roterham."[5]. I really don't see how this here Halifax case could reasonably be deleted w/o also deleting the Wikipedia smaller cases of Rotherham and Rochdale. XavierItzm (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not true is it? Police make lots of statements, but where are the international coverage? where is the CNN pages? the NBC? the tabloids even? a statement that is reported by the local news in regards to a single victim comes no where near close to the other scandals.RomanskiRUS (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart is less trustworthy than my Aunt with Alzheimer's. That should be down right ignored, plus, Breitbart is not international coverage. The "national" coverage you cite is one from the beginning... to one at the end with the sentences, no update in between, the case is not followed nationally whatsoever. The only regular upadates are from the local news stations such as halifax courier, more than likely because there was only a single victim, still WP:NOT as per other users have pointed out.RomanskiRUS (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck comments by block evading sockpuppet of blocked user (and fellow sock of Americatcp). • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-36559092
  2. ^ https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vile-sex-gang-caged-168-8219903
  3. ^ https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tbi/documents/2011%20Tennessee%20Human%20Sex%20Trafficking%20and%20its%20Impact%20on%20Children%20and%20Youth.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.startribune.com/3-twin-cities-somalis-guilty-of-sex-trafficking/150258965/
  5. ^ "Child sexual abuse ring in Halifax: 25 men charged - police reaction". Halifax Courier. 9 February 2015. Retrieved 13 February 2018. police say is the largest child sexual exploitation (CSE) investigation in the country - bigger than high profile cases in Rochdale and Rotherham
Kudos?? For what? The Independent is hardly a WP:RS and the coverage has hardly been significant to say it has been covered nationally. It’s not sufficient to establish notability at all, also if you want to maintain any shred of credibility using Breitbart as a source ruins every chance of that.Americatcp (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:NEVENT claim was addressed above by Icewhiz. To summarize, from WP:NEVENT: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." (text is cited from WP:NEVENT/subsection WP:N/CA). XavierItzm (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How do you know who initiated the prod please? I do not see that recorded on this page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayirmiter (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further note on the sockpuppets. I have gone ahead and struck the comments of the sock puppet Americatcp, as I have noticed that Gene93k only struck the comments of sock puppet RomanskiRUS on this edit. If this is incorrect, please leave me a message and I will revert myself. XavierItzm (talk) 08:16, 18 February 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. ansh666 00:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Leonard (musician)[edit]

David Leonard (musician) (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)

Subject does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability FiddleStix1217 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 11 February 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. Reasonably good consensus here that WP:NPOL is not satisfied. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest H. Rosasco[edit]

Ernest H. Rosasco (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:NPOL. Mayor of small city. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every single person who was ever mayor of anywhere could always claim to be a significant figure in the history of their own community — so if that were a notability freebie in and of itself, we'd have to keep an article about every single mayor who ever mayored anywhere at all. A mayor gets a Wikipedia article by being reliably sourceable as the subject of enough coverage to demonstrate wider significance beyond just their own community, not just because you can assert "significance to his community" in exactly the same way as every other mayor in all of human history could assert too. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Was a mayor" is not an automatic inclusion freebie, because by definition every mayor in all of human history "was a mayor", and neither is "was a judge", for the same reason. Notability is demonstrated by sourcing and substance, not by "he existed". Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The local paper for Rosasco, the North Adams Transcript, is available at newspapers.com (if interested, check out WP:TWL for gratis accounts). He is mentioned in thousands of articles at the site, the vast majority in that paper (https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22ernest+h+rosasco%22+OR+%22e+h+rosasco%22+OR+%22ernest+rosasco%22+OR+%22ernie+rosasco%22). Focusing on key years in his life, I found a number of articles that include in depth profiles of him:
So to me this individual clearly passes WP:V and WP:NOR. There is some discussion about WP:NPOV and WP:N. In particular, regarding NPOV, I think the question is, "can local sources be independent enough to be truly reliable to to write a sufficiently neutral article?" Regarding N, I think the question is the same. I don't think there is any reason why local coverage alone means an individual isn't notable qua important and thus isn't suitable for the encyclopedia, although some disagree with me. Some might point to WP:NOT, perhaps thinking of WP:NOTWHOSWHO. I don't think this applies in many cases about local politicians where the individual had a long public career, even if a rather provincial one. This is not a case where our information is only a name in a list or something like that.
So the question is, "can local sources be independent enough to be truly reliable to write a sufficiently neutral article?" I don't know the answer. I think local sources of large localities are very likely to be reliable. In particular, a main newspaper in a city of over 50,000 or 100,000, or the main newspaper in a state or large part of a state is probably reliable for most issues where no obvious COI exists. For smaller papers, the issue is probably real; the relationship between Rosasco and the Transcript is more likely to have effected coverage of Rosasco than than the relationship between a paper and mayor in Boston or even Framingham (note: I don't know much about Framingham, so perhaps there are idiosyncratic reasons that is a bad example). But looking at those four clippings, there isn't anything in them that is particularly suspect.
I don't know how this discussion will go, but as I've expanded the article based on those sources, my guess is that the article will not be deleted - there are 4 in-depth reasonably reliable references, numerous passing mentions, and tons of unexplored search results including a congressional tribute (which I think might not mean much). I think this is the right outcome because I think the article does not violate WP:DEL-REASON or any core policies or guidelines and because WP:NOTPAPER. I also think that Wikipedia:notability = Wiktionary:notability is a bad practice. I am uncomfortable with the idea that small towns individuals should pass a higher bar because their local media is often of lower quality.
But the more interesting issue to me is that without the contribution of articles from a local paper, there is a fair chance the article would be deleted. The lesson, then, is that an article on a small-town politician, civil servant, athlete, actor, businessman, etc. may be keepable if we can access local newspaper archives, but nay not be kept if it is not clearly, overtly demonstrated that an article can be written which doesn't violate DEL-REASON, etc. I'm not sure if I like or dislike this outcome. On one hand, the existence of a bad page on Rosasco may be a nice magnet for volunteers to improve the article. It also prevents people from creating a new bad page on Rosasco by filling in redlinks at a list of mayors page. On the other hand, a bad page on Rosasco is below the standards of many experienced editors and may be worse than no article. The current concensus occasionally leans towards the later. I think that is fine, as I think experienced editors who like articles on small town figures (including myself and ███specific█examples█redacted███) should do better. But I hope that the concensus continues to be that even a small town individual may be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia if their article is not a vanity article (for instance, I'm usually disinterested in articles about living people without at least a state-level public profile), passes the core content policies, etc. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, the issue is not that local sources are necessarily less reliable than big-city media in principle — it's that purely local sourcing is merely expected to exist for all mayors. So because all mayors aren't automatically accepted as notable just because they exist, merely being able to dig out a couple of pieces of local media coverage isn't in and of itself enough to distinguish a notable mayor from a non-notable one. What we need, to make a smalltown mayor notable enough, is either (a) evidence that his coverage has expanded beyond just the local media, giving him a profile closer than usual to the statewide level that you yourself say is your usual minimum for really giving a hoot), or (b) an article that's really substantial and well-sourced to quite a lot more than just a few pieces of coverage. (Or, ideally, both a and b at the same time, but one or the other is enough.) Certainly it is possible for a smalltown figure to clear those bars — but it's never an automatic given, and I'm definitely not down with the notion, expressed by some people in some recent AFD discussions on mayors, that we should always automatically keep every article about any mayor of anywhere whose existence can be referenced to a glancing namecheck in a list. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the first part of your reply reads similar to exclusionist interpretations of SNGs (ie. that the conditions of an SNG are both sufficient and necessary) or the sixth and eighth bullet at POLOUTCOMES. My counter is that with access to a local paper, it is often possible to find evidence that can arguable meet, "Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty." part of bullet point 6. In comparison, bullet point 8 seems impossible to meet once a definition is given for "small town" (I've seen less than 50,000 or 100,000). I don't have much to say about that, some editors !vote along those lines and others don't. I'm generally opposed to exclusionist interpretations of SNG, but I don't know how to convince someone one way or another.
The middle part of the reply suggests that the "multiple" in multiple in-depth reliable sources should be a larger number the less significant the source. One doesn't get much less significant than the North Adams Transcript; is there a number that you would look for? This case is an outlier, as Rosasco gets 2000+ passing mentions with many multi-paragraph outlines of his career in the paper. I don't think I said that statewide coverage is a usual minimum; I meant to say that major newspapers in a state are very likely independent and also that I think articles on living individuals with less than state-level notoriety generally do not interest me.
The last part of your reply I mostly agree with. I am sorry that such articles aren't improved, as I think it is almost always possible to write a more substantial article (given that it was for Rosasco, who was a mayor in such a singularly small place). Anyway, thanks for indulging me, and feel free to continue the conversation elsewhere (as I don't think it is absolutely relevant to this AfD) or to ignore my reply. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that bullet point 8 is an impossible standard. Local officials can, because of a controversial actions, become a well-known politician (see Kim Davis). Similarly, a local official could become significant because they were elected to the presidency of a national organization, such as the National League of Cities. --Enos733 (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 11 February 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 Elizabeth II#Ancestry. Any sourced information can be merged based on page history. ansh666 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of Elizabeth II[edit]

Ancestry of Elizabeth II (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)

Almost entirely unsourced material about a living person. All but two names at the very bottom of the article could be deleted immediately and without discussion per WP:BLP. Furthermore, the article is hardly helpful. The ahnentafel format is not understandable to an ordinary reader. I know how it works yet I struggle to read it. Elizabeth's ancestry can be explained perfectly in Elizabeth II#Ancestry. Surtsicna (talk) 20:03, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Wójcik[edit]

Natalia Wójcik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to have only one significant role, in Our Huge Adventure and Little Einsteins (the same role in a movie and TV series), so fails WP:NACTOR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:29, 11 February 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 most of them. A lot of conversation (and duplicate recommendations), but lacking in proof of proper sourcing and thus notability, with the exception of West Indies Yacht Club. Not particularly opposed to recreation, but only if reliable sources are used to build them. ansh666 05:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Waterford-Mandeville[edit]

Thierry Waterford-Mandeville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced, BEFORE doesn't show much more. I am nominating additional pages that are part of the same walled garden and rely on the same level of sourcing and BEFORE. The Yacht club actually shows up in a search - but mainly in directories and not much else, failing CORPDEPTH. All pages are connected in that this individual serves a role in them, he is head of family, were historically owned by the family, or are brands of the organization owned by the family.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford-Mandeville Plantation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Waterford-Mandeville family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cambridge Hill Plantation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Old Planteur Rum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
West Indies Yacht Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Why when someone is doing something in the West Indies, and Jamaica particularly, we want to obliterate it. This guy is the descendant of one of the wealthier families of planters of jamaica, and still living there. If you knew about Jamaica colonial history, you would have known that this is very rare. He is a local personality. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages on local figures. Why not this one ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRandale72 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the Waterford Mandeville Plantation page: This is an historic plantation in Belize. Suppressing this mention is like suppressing the page about Buckingham palace in London.... On the Waterford-Mandeville family page: This family has made headlines for the past 950 years or so, so why suppressing the references, which dates even from books published in 1892!!! It looks like people has been discussing this family since a long time ago! On the Cambridge Hill Plantation page: This is an historic sugar estate in Jamaica. See my comments about the other estate in Belize. They have been there since 1655... and shall not be worthy of Wikipedia ???? Nonsense. On the Old Planteur Rum page: Its an historic brand in Belize. What's the problem ? They've been producing this rum since 1885.... On the West Indies Yacht Club page: There are plenty of pages about minor yacht clubs on wikipedia, and this one, existing since 1885 shall be suppressed ??? Nonsense again. What is going on ? Everytime there is a successful thing in Jamaica, someone try to suppress it. Let us all be grey and transparent.... Complete nonsense to suppress those pages. is there is a pilot in the plane to even allow this sort of questions to be asked ??????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRandale72 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ UCL – Researching Slave-owners
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 08:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2) On the other pages I also agree that they shall be kept as it is. Jeff83.43.171.153 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)— 83.43.171.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, sorry, Catholic orders of chivalry do not confer titles in the real world. And there is no such thing as a "hereditary knight of the realm". The only hereditary title that carries the pretitle "Sir" is a baronet. He's not one of those (and even if he was, we only regard the person created a baronet as being inherently notable, not his descendants). This is all complete rubbish, I'm afraid, in an attempt to make him sound more important than he actually is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: - I do suggest you take a closer look at Waterford-Mandeville family - which is similar in its non-notability (and SYNTHY to say the least) to the individual. The two plantation articles and the rum brand also seem to be mainly connected to the subject and created due to the connection. The West Indies Yacht Club does seem to exist, and is more borderline for deletion, however I don't see RSes supporting it.Icewhiz (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say I was neutral leaning delete on all the articles except the yacht club. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator - this IP address has already logged a *vote, above, so I am striking the duplicate one here. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That self-published page is rubbish when it comes to the origin of the family. It claims that they were rewarded for their service at Hastings with a coat of arms showing three lions, except that the earliest evidence of coats of arms in all of England comes from over 100 years later. It also says that Richard I granted the family the right to use a hyphenated surname, when there was no standard practice for surname usage, let alone a requirement of a royal grant to change alter one's surname, until centuries later. (Neither is given an adequate citation to enable me to figure out what the author of the we page was looking at, but that it is not a valid contemporary record is completely evident from the inherent anachronism.) Whoever put this together has credulously followed the mythology of Tudor or Stuart antiquarians (or even later sources) to present a foundation myth. Such a non-reliable self-published web site should not be viewed as contributing to notability. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC) (struck 'self-published) Agricolae (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem RSey, and also bears quite a bit of similarity in some portions to the Wikipedia page. Wouldn't be surprised if the author of that web page were in contact with the present day individual for most of the claims.Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 18 February 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. ansh666 05:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morvarid Karimi[edit]

Morvarid Karimi (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)

Deceased 45 year old assistant professor,WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Seems to be mainly sourced from obits. BEFORE doesn't show much more than obits in terms of coverage of her. She does however have a number of publications in peer-reviewed journals which per my assessment do not rise to WP:NPROF (but kept me from PRODing). Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: - actually PROF is quite lenient in terms of granting notability to academics with no sourcing covering them (beyond their body of work and positions) - opening an additional avenue besides GNG which may also grant notability. This individual is not close to satisfying any of the WP:NPROF criteria (the most relevant here would be NPROF 1 and 4 - widely cited journal papers or widely used textbooks). Granting notability to every assistant professor at a major top ranked institution would significantly widen the scope of NPROF (or narrow NFOOTY) and should be advanced in the guideline documentation - not in an individual AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Icewhiz: pendinq some consensus on how to resolve the notability guidelines' massive and blatant bias against in favour of sports, I see no policy reason to subject an academic to tests which would not be applied to kickers of an inflated leather pouch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note NPROF already counters sysyemic bias by confering notability where GNG does not. The arguement NFOOTY is too inclusive (I think the rationale there is due to footballers appearing in stats and game reports in media - which would typically mean coverage in a few newspapers per game at least) should be taken up with sports and gossip editors in the media (which confer SIGCOV on these individuals regardless of NFOOTY which just creates a presumption of notability), and at the relevant policy pages (or the village pump?) - not in an individual AfD on a non-football subject.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Icewhiz: the media does what it does, and as I'm sure you guessed, I'm not interested in discussions with thousands of sports desks. NFOOTY is in practice used to keep footballers even when exhaustive checking shows that there is nothing on them beyond stats entries or a squad listing. Yes, in theory it's a rebuttable presumption ... but in practice it's an exemption from the SIGCOV requirement.
    And there's not much point discussing NFOOTY , 'cos the sports fans who dominate en.wp's editorial demographic turn up in enough numbers to protect their loophole. So best to just apply the same logic to more encyclopedic topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 07:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watchtime[edit]

Watchtime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article written as an Advert. Sources are primary and fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk 07:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Party for Democracy and Peace. MBisanz talk 01:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gukmin–Bareun party merger[edit]

Gukmin–Bareun party merger (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 very notable event in Korea UnifyKorea (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tessaro[edit]

Chris Tessaro (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. The article is a grab-bag of (unsourced) facts, none of which suggest that any SNG is met. The best claim of notability is hosting a radio show on poker, but I can't find coverage of the show, only mentions in bios in blog posts like [10]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:51, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SK Lavender Heights[edit]

SK Lavender Heights (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)

Primary schools are generally not notable, and there is no reason to believe this one is; the one reference is a directory listing that only proves the school's existence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:18, 11 February 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 as endorsed WP:PROD. ansh666 00:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Leimberg[edit]

Stephan Leimberg (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 a notable person. He appears to be most prominent as an author, but I don't see a case that WP:NAUTHOR is met. Independent references only claim that he was once quoted in an article in a notable publication. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:19, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Hesch[edit]

Jerome Hesch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No particular claim of notability for this attorney, and no significant secondary references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:20, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gassman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alan Gassman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:MILL attorney and self-published author, with no other notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:41, 11 February 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. Merge can be discussed on talk page if you still want to pursue that; otherwise, consensus is that it meets GNG. ansh666 00:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Powers Initiative[edit]

Middle Powers Initiative (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)

Tagged with ((COI))* for over ten years. Perhaps, if no-one has cleaned it up in all that time, we should to admit no one cares enough to have this on Wikipedia?

* Although for all that time, without the required statement of the supposed on-neutrality on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Finkel (author and business coach)[edit]

David Finkel (author and business coach) (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 a notable person; none of the coverage is substantially about him. Receiving a bronze medal in the Pan-American games is not a reasonable claim of notability for someone who appears to promote get-rich-quick books for a living. Not to be confused with the MacArthur Fellow. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:44, 11 February 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. There are a number of sources presented, and clearly the subject meets WP:V, but the consensus here is that the sources are mostly low-quality (blogs, etc) and/or simple mentions. There is not the depth of coverage in high-quality WP:RS to establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleks Susak[edit]

Aleks Susak (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)

Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains(talk) 17:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huffington Post is not a reliable source. The fact that there are a couple articles that mention her in one sentence of the article is of no help whatsoever. See WP:GNG. She's not notable. Also, please disclose any connection you may have to her.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Huffington Post has won a Pulitzer so is it possible to explain why it isn't reliable? Couldn't the amount of times the clothes are seen in magazines, etc be counted as notability? And zero connection to subject. Thanks Abonzz
Please sign your posts, you can read about how to do it here. Also, if you want to write articles that "stick", you need to understand reliable sources and notability. Basically there have to be published independent stories that are in-depth. For this person, the reporting is all very minor name checking, so she fails the notability test. It's your responsibility to read and understand those policies. Arguing every single little statement by other editors will get you nowhere as you clearly have not read and understood those policies.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely not seeing where there's been a Huffington Post source added to this article at all — and I've checked the edit history as well, so it's not that it got added and then removed, but rather it's that if you intended to add a Huffington Post citation you forgot to actually do it. At any rate, The Huffington Post is kind of a borderline source — it's more reliable than the average Blogspot blog, so it can be used for some additional confirmation of facts, but its content still consists principally of bloggers who are given latitude to write about anything or anybody they want to, so it's not a source that could carry notability all on its own if it were the best source on offer. So, in a nutshell, we'd need to actually see the HuffPo source before we could evaluate how much it helps. And neither The Globe and Mail nor La Presse is helping, either, because both articles just namecheck Aleks Susak's existence within coverage of Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, and neither of them is about Aleks Susak. Passing GNG requires media coverage in which Susak is substantively the subject of the source, not just media coverage of other people which happens to passingly mention that Susak exists. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failure of notability guidelines is not a valid reason for speedy deletion per point 5 of WP:NOTCSD. LinguistunEinsuno 21:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are! I was mixing up the "speedy k*ep" language of AfD's with the speedy del*te language.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Text was originally added to establish notability. Is it possible to point out exactly what makes it sound like a fanpage so changes can be made? Thanks Abonzz
Please sign your posts, you can read about how to do it here.104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Long back and forth between two users
Those are not significant coverage. The first is an interview (not WP:RS( and the second is two paragraphs in total.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that one of the sources includes an interview, but that is not the full article. Both sources include significant discussion about her. According to WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Lonehexagon (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the entirety of what you are referring to as "significant coverage" in the interview article in Urbanology:

"Pattern, colour and bold prints are the driving force behind up and coming designer Aleks Susak’s eclectic and sophisticated collections. Transitioning from marketing to fashion design was simple for the former model. After all, her mother Mila is an artist and was able to assist her creative visions along the way. With having years of experience working in the fashion and television industry to her advantage, as well as a unique personal sense of style, Susak channeled her inner fashionista into creating a collection for the sophisticated and fashion-conscious woman. Debuting her official self-titled clothing line with her Spring/Summer 2015 collection, the budding designer takes on the androgyny of the peacock and gentleness of the butterfly to mold her bright and daring pieces."

and here's the other source you say is significant:

"Elegant, feminine, and chic – this is what Canadian womenswear designer Aleks Susak‘s Fall/Winter 2017-2018 collection is. Sophisticated and graceful styles, glamorous and fashionable looks, tasteful combinations were presented on the runway at the Windsor Arms Hotel this September. European national wear inspired Aleks to create these looks, making hand-embroidered components on select collection pieces a central feature. As she states, ‘every collection strives to provide a fresh, modern and feminine take on dressing the modern woman‘.

Famous for her hand-painted silk garments, Aleks Susak has gained popularity among top Canadian celebrities and public figures. Helping women express their individuality and femininity, Aleks creates timeless pieces, experimenting with different fabrics and incorporating artistic touches, which are always common themes in every collection – whether pieces are hand-painted, hand-embroidered, or other. Her collections feature ‘the full spectrum of colours, and each colour stands out on its own, especially when accentuated by a particular cut or model‘.

Though designing clothes is what Aleks loves to do, she is also excited about ‘branching out into accessories‘. This will be a whole new level for the brand, and we cannot wait to see it!"

104.163.148.25 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Both those cases are more than a trivial mention, and she is the main topic of the source material. The complete articles also include an interview and dozens of pictures of her designs. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. Two paragraphs about how she helps "women express their individuality and femininity" is the definition of trivial (as in lacking substance) coverage. Interviews and photographs are also not reliable sources. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She is a clothing designer. The coverage is about how she designs clothing. When you say her coverage "is the definition of trivial" I feel this may be coming from a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT rationale as opposed to a close read of the Wikipedia guidelines. If you look at WP:SIGCOV, an example of trivial coverage is this: "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that 'In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice' is plainly a trivial mention of that band." The coverage here is specifically about Susak and her work, and contains far more than a trivial mention of her. Lonehexagon (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding SIGCOV. The example they give there is "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM." The material above is likewise trivial as it imparts a trivial amount of information about the designer. it does not say much more than the fact that she designs dresses. That's trivial coverage, lacking depth etc. Everything you have brought up as evidence of RS is incorrect, so let's agree to disagree.104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could hat this exchange it would probably be useful to other readers.104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree to disagree, but I would like to point out the facts that were stated in those articles, which I believe amount to significant coverage for a designer:
Susak is a Canadian fashion designer who used to be a model. Her mother Mila is an artist and helps her with design. Before becoming a designer she had years of experience working in the fashion and television industry. Her clothes target "sophisticated and fashion-conscious woman" and have been worn by public figures and celebrities. She is known for hand-painting and hand-embroidering her clothing. She has recently announced she will start making accessaries in addition to clothes.
Career
Susak's first clothing line was a self-titled Spring/Summer 2015 clothing collection which features androgyny, with patterns and bright colors that are reminiscent of a butterfly or peacock. Her Fall/Winter 2017-2018 collection is based on "European national wear" and has been called "Elegant, feminine, and chic" and was presented on the runway at the Windsor Arms Hotel in September 2017. Her previous collections were highly regarded for using painted silk, and a central feature of the Fall/Winter 2017-2018 collection is hand-embroidered components. The article then goes on to showcase her work. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://urbanologymag.com/aleks-susak-model-turned-designer/
  2. ^ http://www.beyondfashionmagazine.com/fashion/artistic-touches-full-spectrum-colours-aleks-susaks-fw17-18-collection/
  3. ^ http://fusia.ca/aleks-susak-fallwinter-2017-2018-collection/
  4. ^ https://vitaandmoda.com/2014/11/28/emerging-designer-to-watch-aleks-susak/
  5. ^ http://www.fashionscissors.net/2014/11/aleks-susak-fashion-show.html
Those are extremely poor sources. I encourage you to have a look at WP:RS. The first Fusia source is copied from Wikipedia. The second Vitaandmoda source is a blog, (non-RS) and the third is a single person publishing a web page, aka a blog. See the contact page where she says "If you have any questions, ideas, suggestions, job offers or even advice please contact me at xyz@ somethign com" As an example, a set of reliable sources would be a profile in the Toronto Star, another in the Globe and Mail, and one or two others. That would cut it, but all we have for this person is very minor mentions. Minor=trivial. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to disagree. I feel like it's well-established that she's notable as a designer with enough coverage to create an article about her. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New sources were added to the Susak page : Canadian Living magazine, LZXY magazine and Toronto City Life. Here is the Huffington Post article that begins with a description of the Susak outfit: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/02/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-vancouver-pride_n_11305254.html Thanks Abonzz (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Huffington Post article definitely doesn't assist notability, then. It's not about Aleks Susak, but merely mentions Aleks Susak in the process of being about Sophie Grégoire Trudeau — which cuts no ice toward making Aleks Susak notable. And none of the other new sources you've added to the article help either — City Life and LXRY are blogs, not reliable or notability-supporting sources, and the Canadian Living piece is, yet again, a mere mention of Aleks Susak's existence in a blurb about Sophie Grégoire Trudeau. None of these sources are showing what's required — as I already said, we're not looking for coverage of other people which happens to mention Aleks Susak's name, we're looking for coverage about Aleks Susak herself. She has to be the subject of a source, not just a name present in sources about other subjects, before that source assists in demonstrating her notability, and those sources have to be reliable media outlets and not blogs — so we're still at exactly zero notability-assisting sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being "featured in" magazine and news articles is not a notability pass. Being the subject of newspaper and magazine articles is what's required, and none of the sources being shown here are doing that. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 19 February 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 procedural close. Wrong forum - articles with content merged to other articles cannot be deleted, merge proposals need to be added to article talk pages. Article can be redirected to merge target. Michig (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avenged Sevenfold members[edit]

List of Avenged Sevenfold members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge discussion, all necessary content has been moved to the main article. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 16:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise redirecting (not deleting) was the way to go – sorry about that one. Feel free to close. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Social immunity. North America1000 17:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Immunity[edit]

Social Immunity (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)

Appears to duplicate Social immunity Rathfelder (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 16:33, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Ontario Mining Cup[edit]

2017 Ontario Mining Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication or evidence that the various years' events of this tournament are notable. Nominating both 2017 Ontario Mining Cup and 2018 Ontario Mining Cup for deletion. PKT(alk) 14:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC) As noted above, I am also nominating the following related page :[reply]

2018 Ontario Mining Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 14:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 14:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 14:36, 11 February 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. North America1000 17:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dillion Harper[edit]

Dillion Harper (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 gng and pornbio. Spartaz Humbug! 13:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*The Nightmoves Award falls short of the "well-known and significant industry award" criterion for WP:PORNBIO and the win lacks coverage by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: bwahaha! Your response made my day ma man! On a serious note, she looks very cute. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Cerutti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Guillaume Cerutti (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)

BLP with no sources. Was nominated a year ago, with few sources. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Note:Article now has now being rebuilt with new references by User:Zigzig20s. Please take this into account. scope_creep (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: Would you like to withdraw your nomination please? Your rationale for deleting it appears to be null now.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator scope_creep (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: Thanks. Could you please remove the tag from the article too?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:25, 11 February 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. Michig (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Combative anatomy[edit]

Combative anatomy (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)

Completely unsourced speculation Rathfelder (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:34, 11 February 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 Highschool of the Dead characters. While copying from Wikia isn't exactly a copyvio (it has the same cc-by-sa license), an unattributed one is. ansh666 00:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shizuka Marikawa[edit]

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

Fails GNG and in universe description with no real live relevance. Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at these

Main characters and secondary characters should have their own article. Rudra Tenio Chakraborty (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of article has been blocked for disruptive editing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also okay with deletion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also okay with redirecting the page to List of Highschool of the Dead characters per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rubina Gillani[edit]

Rubina Gillani (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)

Nothing significant in coverage to get an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Schwartz[edit]

Dana Schwartz (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)

First ref is her own website. 2nd and 3rd refs are interviews. 4th one is a commercial catalog. Therefore non notable bio. Mar11 (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 11 February 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. ansh666 00:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brandone Francis[edit]

Brandone Francis (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 university basketball player. Fails the specific notability criteria for basketball players. Does not otherwise meet the basic notability criteria for sportspeople, notability guideline for people, or the general notability guideline. Due diligence reveals only superficial or glancing mentions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Ali Isani[edit]

Usman Ali Isani (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)

Clear CV. VC of a local university. Fails WP:NPROF test. Störm (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M. J. Kang[edit]

M. J. Kang (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)

Minor performer and playwright. Most Dora Award winners do not have their own articles. Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, that's not actually a useful thing to do. If we can't provide a link to the entire text of an article, then there's no value in providing a link to a mere abstract of it. Wikipedia has no requirement whatsoever that our sources actually have to be web-accessible at all — we are allowed to cite print-only content, such as paper or microfilm copies of newspapers or magazines or books, so we should only provide a convenience URL if one exists for the complete text of the source. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Club[edit]

Honor Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence that it is yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Seems to meet the criteria for Speedy keep as per #2 and/or #3. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 11:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard–MIT Mathematics Tournament[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Harvard–MIT Mathematics Tournament (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 page does not explain why this topic is notable, nor does it cite any sources. The references tag currently on the page was set up over a decade, and still isn't resolved. Winmaster123 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC) — Winmaster123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's "rescue list", here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably EEng meant User:David Eppstein. (Why hasn't User:David Epstein been UN-blocked, by the way? I guess back in 2007 the username creation filter didn't prevent names that were that similar to existing users...) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Octavia Taylor[edit]

Octavia 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 believe that this should be a redirect to Zachary Taylor. As she had such a short life, I think coverage of her would best be contained to coverage in her parents' respective pages per WP:NOPAGE. Enwebb (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Kuban[edit]

Glen Kuban (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 am a little puzzled how this computer programmer could be considered notable DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously enough, the NYT story contradicts the WP article: it says he did convince some of the creationists that that particular piece of evidence was useless. It also says, which our article does not, that this study was the key interpretation of the tracks. Nice example of how a poorly written article can fail to show something is significance -it seemed so insignificant I omitted to actually read the reference. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Kuban tried unsuccessfully to convince creationists that the tracks weren't human in the article isn't sourced to the NYT article, but rather to this article in Creation/Evolution, which states, "Kuban tried in vain to have creationists view these newly cleaned and mapped trails that constitute their most-cited pieces of evidence for human and dinosaur contemporaneity." This is consistent with the text in the article now, which says, "After cleaning and mapping the trails during his field work there, he tried, unsuccessfully, to convince creationists to look at them." I would also like to politely suggest that anyone planning on nominating an article for deletion *cough* DGG *cough* ensure that they follow WP:BEFORE before doing so. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the article you're describing is from the NCSE, an affiliate of AAAS. That is, this isn't some random blog; it's a notable publication, and Kuban is featured prominently in the story line. 136.62.254.174 (talk) 15:34, 13 February 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. Michig (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayame Ikehata[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ayame Ikehata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

First AfD closed as no consensus in 2008. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 February 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 Procedural close. The AfD format was royally screwed up, can the original nominator please nominate each article for deletion again individually? (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Revere McFadden[edit]

David Revere McFadden (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 propose delete due to the above reasons. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 00:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [promotional articles created by colleagues / the museum and lack of sources and notability. They act like advertisements.]:[reply]

Holly Hotchner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lowery Stokes Sims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paul J. Smith (arts administrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG OPPOSE any deletion of Lowery Stokes Sims an important, notable museum curator who was assistant curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, for many years...Modernist (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to remind the nominator that conflict of interest and being promotional are not reasons for deletion unless there is a copyright violation. If there is a COI that can be dealt with separately and promotional text can be edited. Likewise, there being "no reason" for an article is not a valid reason for deletion and certainly doesn't speak to notability issues. As for sources, I would like to know what the nominator means by "high quality" as this is vague and doesn't really address WP:NOTE. We need to go by WP:GNG here and this needlessly complicated 4-in-1 AfD isn't really addressing this. Note to closing admin: I would like to ask that this AfD/these AfDs be kept open beyond the usual time limit as it requires more time to go through all of this to make an assessment.
Finally, if anyone is able to migrate the three other articles to separate AFDs that would be useful. The three other AfDs can be linked here if the nominator feels there is a connection (such as article creator) but they should be addressed individually. freshacconci (✉) 16:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have to say why it is "unsuitable". Just saying delete/unsuitable is of no effect.104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


EXACTLY. This is a disaster AfD that should be closed and renominated individually, ASAP.104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG yes close and start again. One by one. This is a mess.--Theredproject (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Experimentalfältet[edit]

Experimentalfältet (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)

Withdrawn -- Reference (in Swedish, which I cannot read) supplied. This article is about a "field for experiments". The title is not meaningful in English. The article has been unreferenced since 2011. A PROD was reverted with the explanation that the building is notable. There are, apparently, references in Swedish, but no inline citation was provided. If the Frederick Bloom House is indeed notable, then the article should be MOVEed and the text recast to describe the house, and not the agricultural research garden Rhadow (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Eustachiusz (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eustachiusz (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the helpful reference. I've added this article to my To Do list, and will improve it to my own satisfaction, rather than that of the nomr.Eustachiusz (talk) 14:45, 11 February 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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Girl of the Year[edit]

Cyber Girl of the Year (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)

Indiscriminate collection of information and significant RS coverage not found. The honour listed is not significant and well-known; the article on the program has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club (2nd nomination). All recipients are non-notable, so the article does not work as a list either.

The page has been previously deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club, and then restored via DVR. However, all articles that were part of the DVR have since been deleted. This is the lone hold-out and should be deleted as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 February 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.
  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=t16MqnuKW1IC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=%22Rubina+Gillani%22+pakistan&source=bl&ots=rXPVhwr7u3&sig=hnQtCZMSn8bua3DfogZ3lpsFxg4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZyJWjzajZAhWqgFQKHXpMBeYQ6AEIZTAN#v=onepage&q=%22Rubina%20Gillani%22%20pakistan&f=false
More