< 14 January	16 January >

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Zone[edit]

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

Issues were raised several years ago that this seems to be a hoax. Indeed, searching "Cool Zone" with the names listed turns up no results. If it did exist, it gained no notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I deprodded this, as it was previously prodded in December 2007, but deprodded two days later by an IP. Supposedly a TV series in four parts each 5 minutes long on C31 Adelaide aired in August–September 2005. The article has never been referenced to sources. Let's search with two modifiers

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

I find nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. There are a few things suggesting this is a hoax: Originally created by an editor claiming to be a journalist from South Australia, the article has seen no substantial edits for the last eight years, but between its creation in February 2006 until January 2010, most substantial edits were performed by IPs that geolocate to NSW on ranges 58.104*, 58.105*, 58.106*, and 220.238* that all are assigned to Optus. When an IP was done half an hour after creation, the host was one Matty-T.

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

But no sources are found. A week later the host name is changed to Emmy T, so ...

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

... you guessed it: nada. One Adam Micheal Todd is a short-lived "host" (don't bother to search) before the host becomes one X-Cool in January 2007 (don't bother to search), and when 220.238.66.209 (talk) in December 2007 deprods and removes the unreferenced tag, they change the host name to M-Cool (don't bother to search).

All in all, this has all the hallmarks of a hoax - thank you both 98.209.191.37 (talk) and TenPoundHammer - and seems with an age of 18 years to be a contender for a current second place on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Sam Sailor 23:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not going to scream hoax on this because this was a show on a community TV station, thus by design sourcing is going to be horrible; I believe it did air. But it didn't get beyond four weeks and this seems to be an artifact of the time where we were writing about anything that premiered on television and were loose with sources. If it did air, it likely did in a low-profile timeslot with viewership among a select few people. I also believe the continual 'host' switching was IPs having a go on an article without many visitors. Nate • (chatter) 04:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia In spite of the fact that this show was allegedly aired on a community TV station, the article still claims that it had "a cult following" (which I believe is incredibly unlikely for a program that aired for a very short time; also searching information for that claim brings me zero positive results on Google) and apparently several other Australian TV channels were interested in picking up the show back in 2006 but didn't happen because of disagreements with M-Cool or whoever the IP decides to change the host's name to (attempting to search for any news coverage of this show on Google News brings me zero results). I do agree that this should be archived as a hoax simply because of how long this article managed to evade detection for a very long time. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG regardless of veracity. –dlthewave ☎ 14:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sceptical this existed because of the five minute episodes consisting of "numerous" segments each strikes me as unlikely, but either way I couldn't find any sources at all, having looked quite hard, so the article shouldn't stay. Mortee (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if this is not a hoax, it's totally unverifiable and as such it has to go. Given that it is supposedly a short running interstitial programme on a community television station in a smaller city, I don't think it is beyond the realm of possibility that it existed and the Internet has simply forgotten all about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete We can't know if it is a hoax. We can quite clearly know that it isn't notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Brisson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, since the sources within the article do not show significant coverage of the subject, only passing mentions. Reads like a vanity piece. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than self promotion. Mattg82 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also suspect WP:AUTOBIO here, as this article was its creator's only contribution to Wikipedia — and while I can't prove that outright, what I am 100 per cent certain about is that the sources here aren't cutting it for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG: the vast majority of them are either unreliable or primary, and the only two that are technically reliable ones are just verifying a tangential fact about somebody else named in this article. Not only are they not about Brisson, they completely fail to even mention Brisson's name at all — which means they accomplish nothing here in terms of assisting Brisson's notability. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gradeup[edit]

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

This article does not satisfy product notability or general notability and reads like an advertisement. The references are not third-party, but are in the nature of published press releases or advertorials, and Google search turns up nothing written independently, only the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is shown as having been accepted via Articles for Creation. However, it was reviewed properly through AFC once and declined. It was then moved from draft space to article space by a paid editor, not by an AFC reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just saw this at AfC as it was a pending draft in the article space. Taking a look at the references, the article lacks WP:CORPDEPTH. There are many references, but they are from unreliable sources or simply state general announcements about the company.
Delete - fails N - it's a prep test which may have significance for those about to take a test. Not seeing the required RS that make this one particularly notable over any other. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:50, January 15, 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Author has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom SeraphWiki (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 12:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Jain[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (sports) by some distance; the creator of the article 'jainmanish2k' wrote the article about himself, no significant coverage. Montgomery15 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-promo, fails GNG. Not one RS for V of his pro career or that he passes N. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no more than a few passing mentions in some sources. Clearly doesn't meet notability. MT Train^Discuss 06:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 18 January 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. No reliable sources ~ no article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interconnectedness[edit]

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

This article has no substantial sources, and is mostly an opinion essay based on original research. It pieces together various forms of interconnectedness (economic and political) to create a religious sense of connectedness in the reader. That's great rhetoric, but bad for an encyclopedia. I don't see how to turn it into a good article, as it has no clearly defined topic. Daask (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has waited over ten years for reliable sources, and none are forthcoming. The last large contribution to the article is a word-for-word copy of non-free content from a website that isn't even about the topic. Also, WTF is this? — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- badly sourced essay mostly concerned with unscientific woo-woo. Reyk _YO! 11:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate collection of unrelated quotes and trivia. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mystical mishmash. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pages interconnectivity and interdependence look pretty bad too. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say earlier: the sentence "Interconnectedness is the main aspect of chaos theory" is just wrong. Where is the "interconnectedness" in the logistic map or the Lorenz equations or the Van der Pol oscillator? (I guess a driven damped pendulum kit is "interconnected" in the sense that if I want to use it in a lab, I have to "interconnect" it with an electrical outlet.) Platitudinous, "chaos theory says we're all connected, man" vagaries have no place in an encyclopedia. And synthesis of vagaries on the basis that, in their warmth and fuzziness, they sound alike — that is not an improvement. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, unsourced anbd iffy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am appalled to see only frank deletionists at work. True, it's a mish-mash. But for ...'s sake, let's keep the parts for the time being, so that at least we can create more specific articles and make it a disambiguation page. I have already applied some cleanup and the religious stuff for one may need some sharpening but is absolutely substantial. You do not want to include interpenetration in network theory for sure? Well, here goes your missing link (viz. article). -- Kku (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is a lack of reliable sources. Sourcing is essential to Wikipedia's mission, and we are under no obligation to keep any text that can't be attributable to a source. — Warren. ‘ talk , 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Horton[edit]

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

The article does not contain much information pertaining to notability, or at least not as supported by reliable, secondary sources.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of notable people owning works you created does not show that an artist is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only recently read the policy but it seems to me that it says this artist is notable. The policy is called WP:Artist, check section 4, part d. part b may also be relevant. Also my understanding is that her awards are also of relevance. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the awards listed could not be much less notable than they already are. To wit: "2006 Dog Writers' Association of America Best Illustration Award". 198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they are not, the awards related to the Society of Canadian Artists look impressive but I can't seem to find out what they really are. My comment is mostly about "a bunch of notable people owning works you created", when the policy says that if notable galleries own a person's work then that makes the artist notable. And also the policy says that if the work has been in a major exhibition the artist is also notable. No one seems to be paying attention to the exhibitions, or the owners of this artists work despite the fact that this could very well make the artist notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The exhibitions in cafes and community centres are also less than notable. A significant exhibition, as mentioned in WP:ARTIST is something like the Venice Biennale 198.58.161.137 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should have been specific, I am referring to the exhibitions at the Toronto International Art Fair, Loch Gallery and Abbozzo Gallery, and also the six exhibitions the Art Gallery of Burlington which I see is an important gallery described as the "seventh largest public art gallery in Ontario". I no nothing of the "juried exhibitions" but there are some named galleries in that list also. There are also the Society Of Artists exhibitions which I again don't know anything about and might be the ones you were referring to. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Burlington Art Centre? Not the same as the Art Gallery of Burlington. The Toronto International Art Fair, Loch Gallery and Abbozzo Gallery are all commercial venues. In any case, we do not go by venue (unless it is something very significant, in which case we can look at WP:ARTIST more). We use this standard: NOTABILITY IS ESTABLISHED BY WIDE, IN-DEPTH COVERAGE in RELIABLE SOURCES. Please read WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. You do not seem to understand how notability works, and those pages may help. Also, look at at the experienced editors voting delete on this page, for good reasons. Read their reasons as well. This page is a quite clear delete. If she had a number of good references it would be OK, but there are not enough to establish notability. That's my last comment on that.198.58.161.137 (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good enough for me, I will recommend Delete now on the basis that the possible importance of the galleries has been looked at and is they are not important enough for the WP:ARTIST policy to be relevant. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the awards are not significant awards (member shows, etc) and do not establish notability. Also the page appears to be a close paraphrase of the artist's website: http://heatherhorton.com/biography/ --Theredproject (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable awards. Page written like a CV, although that's not a deletion criteria. Nothing turns up in Gnews. One reference in article. Does nto meet WP:GNG.198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a CV. Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 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. Well, if there is "not enough information" it's difficult to justify an article. No redirect per Sam Sailor's rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentimental Rhythms[edit]

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

While the artist and producer are notable, this seems a CRYSTAL case with absolutely no reliable sources available that discuss the mixtape significantly. The mixtape does not seem to clear either the WP:GNG or WP:FUTUREALBUM thresholds. Lourdes 19:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Benzino – the article is so poorly written it's not even clear if the mixtape exists or not... the article calls it "fictitious" but it does appear to have been recorded and is even available to download illegally. Doesn't appear to be any sourcing at all apart from an audio interview with Benzino, although it's not clear where it was recorded. Without any form of official release or even a track listing, it's impossible to say that this passes WP:NALBUM. Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a wonderful idea to you. Go to your phone, check if you have Benzino's actual number, actual contact information, because you unfortunately you do not. I have worked with Benzino on and off for three years. I have been helping him with pushing music and social media marketing for his ventures. Unfortunately, because there is too little information for individuals like yourself, who consider with a closed mind, should be evaluating on the basis of the individual you are referring to. Do not make me the scapegoat because you information is not accurate. So called "contributors" and "scholars" like yourselves did not even know that Benzino was featured on three albums and five mixtape, which I have added onto that page. If you want my details and feed of conversation I have had with him, email me, I will be more than welcome to provide that to you, because I am not fond of individuals who make presumptuous arguments on the basis of information they did not even bother to research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejsodhi (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tejsodhi Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or gossip website. It requires sources from published, reliable entities, not personal knowledge. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse us of not having done the research, and in the same paragraph admit that there is "too little information" available for us to be able do that research... which is tantamount to admitting that the mixtape is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Maybe you have access to personal information but WP:IKNOWIT is not acceptable as a reliable independent source... and as you admit to helping Benzino market and promote his music, you are not an independent source. Richard3120 (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL7 as unverifiable. I get 18 non-repeated hits on a search for Benzino "Sentimental Rhythms", none of them are reliable. The article basically amounts to a few snippets of supposedly inside information by a declared COI editor. Sentimental Rhythms is currently not mentioned in Benzino, and it should not be, as long as no WP:RS exist to confirm it. As such, the title is not a valid search term, therefore a suggested policy-based WP:ATD-R solution as a categorized ((R from album)) to the artist article is here out of the question. Sam Sailor 14:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ow Yeong Wai Kit[edit]

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

Non-notable teacher/poet lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are short or lmited mentions. Lacks depth needed to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any evidence that he meets our criteria as a teacher, artist, or advocate. He writes poems, he publishes articles, he gives talks. But there is no independent coverage of him or his work. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is just not enough to advance notability. The subject co-edits books, one compilation Love at the Gallery, has 13 poems with the subject and his co-editor submitting one poem each. He co-edited From Walden to Woodlands along with "Muzakkir Samat". The article credits the subject simply as the editor. Nothing even approaching notability for a stand-alone article. As a Secondary School teacher he is one of multiple thousands the world over. He apparently invented a learning game but that has not gained notability. Otr500 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imad Karim[edit]

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

fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG nothing of note over and above his facebook account being blocked found in a WP:BEFORE search. Source 1 is his own site, the achgut source is affiliated as he writes for them and the 3 others cover his FB account being blocked. Domdeparis (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates that he rises to the level of being a notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding lots of sources. German public broadcaster ADR did a documentary piece on him. It hasn't just been the Facebook suspension that's been covered. Prominent and controversial filmmaker.FloridaArmy (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add the sources so we can have a look? Domdeparis (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The article is almost entirely unsourced original research and appears non neutral. For example, I found this passage in German press:

Imad Karim is allegedly a TV journalist - only for a very long time without TV releases. In the 90's he had been able to realize some productions for ARD stations. But that was a long time ago. He earns his living as a commercial filmmaker, which does not stop him from calling himself a "director" and "TV journalist". [1] (Not sure if this is a reliable source or not.)

I'm seeing some interviews with the subject, but nothing in depth about him. Not finding anything in Google Books. Without proper sourcing, this article is not viable. There may be a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not convinced), but this article ain't it. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:34, 23 January 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. COATRACK and POV Fork. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto Valley[edit]

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

Branding exercise / advertisement for Zug. Batternut (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 21:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IF YOU WANT TO DELETE, DELETE IT, I WILL CERTAINLY DONT WAST TIME WITH THAT. I HOPE THERE IS A BIG PROBLEM OF BIT SPACE ON HARDWARE AND I HOPE THIS REMOVAL WILL HELP TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.237.231.60 (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF has plenty of room on its servers, don't worry. L3X1 Be a New Page Patroller!(distænt write) 03:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some references to this article from BBC, Bloomberg, CNBC, The Straits Times and Reuters. The term seems frequently used by independent third party sources. Other tech clusters such as Silicon Fen and Silicon Glen have articles and I don't see too much of an issue in keeping this particular article, particularly given the a number of notable blockchain businesses and start-ups clustered in this locale. --Uhooep (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some tech clusters have articles, others don't e.g. Silicon Spa (which also has local council support, and an official website etc). WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD. Widefox; talk 22:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zug or Delete - lead is clear this is nickname for Zug, so a WP:POVFORK of Zug and a synonym that should redirect to the place, say in a section covering this aspect. I also have reservations that this is promotionalism, and recentism created by an WP:SPA. As such, WP:NOT promo applies and may be deleted even if a look at sources indicate this has coverage for the concept. Note it's also a WP:COATRACK for Crypto Valley Association which presumably isn't notable per NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 21:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's many WP:SPAs and a current WP:COIN covering editor(s) here. Widefox; talk 21:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not an official or even a common name for this area, The article only seems to be there to advertise technology companies. This is not a notable neologism. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: The lead of this article states, nickname for Zug that can be covered in the lead and a section of that article. I suppose merge can be an alternative because hopefully some of the 14 references can be used on the horribly sourced (23 references) 3891 word Zug article. It can't hurt. Otr500 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 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. I'm not sure what was intended to be done with the dab page, so I'll leave it to somebody else to follow up with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it looks like the handy-dandy XFDcloser script already deleted the dab entry. If somebody wants to restore that in some form, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suckerpunch (song)[edit]

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

No non-primary references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prod removed with the comment of "First release of 29 x the Pain, regular Wildhearts gig closer and fan favourite)". Richhoncho (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to the wildhearts. Because it would nto be accurate to redirect to La Roux(sic)'s song, Bulletproof. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L3X1: I'm not sure I understand the relevance of La Roux's song "Bulletproof". Mz7 (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mz7A musician remixed La Roux's song, and another person added graphics from Sucker Punch (2011 film) making a fairly successful video^[1]. However neither of our articles for the song or the film mention this, and I cannot find any news sources which would warrant a mention or a redirect, nor do I have any numerical proof to back up "Suckerpunch (song)" as a viable search term to something other than the Wildhearts. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Wildhearts. It seems a bit strange to have a separate article on a single where the article talks about what is on the B side of the single. Vorbee (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A modified entry at Sucker punch (disambiguation) would suffice. No need to have redirects from convoluted titles just because someone created an article. --Michig (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now which version of not keep do we prefer?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Michig - modify the Sucker punch dab. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:00, 23 January 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 National Electrification Administration. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electric cooperatives of the Philippines[edit]

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

Unreferenced and Wikipedia is not a directory. There is perhaps room for inclusion on National Electrification Administration, but I am unconvinced the individual cooperatives are notable; if included on National Electrification Administration, this should be condensed/summarized. paul2520 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Very little verifiable content related to list entries. Ajf773 (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Electrification Administration. I'm not saying "merge" because I don't see any content worth merging. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhi Ghuman[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:Newz100!* - reason given for their nomination is: "I am Sukhi Ghuman, a non notable private person and wish the page about me to be deleted." I am taking no position on this AfD myself. Iffy★Chat -- 18:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an atrocious article about a person whose only claim to notability is being affiliated with a non-notable business. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. This article is heavily referenced, but most of the references (and most of the article) are devoted to a long list of non-notable awards he has won. He does rate a mention in some of the other references, but not enough to build a biography. I think it's possible that a real article could be written about him someday, particularly if he gets more involved in sport - but this isn't it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Longevity and Cryopreservation Summit[edit]

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

No indication this one time event received significant coverage in any sources, journalistically or academically, so fails WP:GNG & WP:EVENT. Additionally, there appear to be WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE issues, which I'd appreciate any editor with experience in those areas addressing. If there are issues in those areas, that is only going to re-enforce my nomination rationale John from Idegon (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG; this is a hijacked page to record the conference. Not what WP is for. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Garden variety conference summary. As such it belongs in the newsletter of the appropriate professional society, not here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just corporate PR. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete It's an uphill climb for any single conference to be notable, and this one doesn't even start. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Topic may be notable, but hundreds of conferences about notable topics happen every day of the year all around the world. No evidence of this event having any special significance to the world order. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No major breakthroughs or notable issues raised at this particular event so it doesn't need to be singled out. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even then, it would be the breakthrough that was notable, not the conference it was announced at. Natureium (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Zone[edit]

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

Only one Independent source in the article, the other is clearly an affiliated source. Searches indicate nothing better. The best I could find was one passing mention.

This is completely apart from the fact that her PR manager has admitted planting stories in the press, taking into question even the limited coverage the show has got, see the AfD on her own article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – doesn't pass WP:GNG: two sources are provided: the first is a non-independent primary source (blog of the show's host); the other could somewhat pass as a secondary source but misses broad coverage of the topic (does no more than more or less repeat the content of the blog page). A less than half-eligible secondary source (didn't invest further time in assessing possible ineligibility for reliability reasons) does not make "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources". Plus all the WP:COIN stuff we had lately with the host's PR agent. Looked at WP:NTV but didn't see anything more redeeming there ("the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG per nom and Francis Schonken. The deliberate subversion of notability requirements are enough to question seemingly RS sources, which are even absent here. Widefox; talk 21:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources are Oseña-Paez's own website and an article on the Philippine Entertainment Portal (another spammy page) explaining why the show, which closed down five years ago, no longer airs. – Athaenara ✉ 15:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm shocked, shocked, that a television program might have hired a PR firm. I'd expect this type of show to meet the (generally-low) notability guidelines, but I can't find any significant coverage of it. [2] shows that it was nominated for an award, but that isn't enough on its own. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 20 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Newhouse[edit]

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

seems to be a case of BLP1E Thalium (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's been covered post-2012 campaign. This NYT article and this WaPo interview are about his views on the 2014 midterms. He's quoted frequently in current political stories, which aren't about him but give him ongoing relevance (Politico, HuffPo, WaPo, WaPo, CNN). The NYT piece includes biographical detail that wouldn't slot into the articles about the various political events, so I think a separate article on him is appropriate. That said, I drafted several versions of this, mostly 'here are some sources; still not sure', so I'll be interested to hear others' views. Mortee (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I did a bit more digging and expanded the article (before, after). I hope it's a clearer keep now. Mortee (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Kudos to Mortee for an outstanding rescue job. --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 22 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter and the Wolf (band)[edit]

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

The lead singer of this band isn't notable enough to have a WP article and the band itself seems to have received only limited coverage. Thalium (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Seems to have received only limited coverage" - based on what, exactly? A quick Google found loads of coverage in a diverse range of sources, e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NBAND, --Michig (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since they are a folk band, their works are probably not going to light up the charts, however as above, they have garnered enough coverage to satisfy notability requirements. Mattg82 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with and adopt the rationale of editor Michig above. With the multiplicity of sources listed above the subject passes WP:GNG. Also satisfies WP:NBAND. Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I will go through and add some more references. John Cummings (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HoMER Network: History of Moviegoing, Exhibition and Reception[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG the sources do not concern the subject of this article but are publications on the subject of hollywood audiences written by one of the founders of the network. Domdeparis (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most publications on this topic seem to be from people involved in the movement, and therefore not independent sources. It might make sense to expand the article on film studies with an account of recent developments including studies of audience and reception, which are becoming more popular.[17][18][19] (links include bibliographies) Topics like audience reception could also be expanded to cover film. But I'm at a loss for how best to proceed with this article (I think there have been pieces in some specialist publications on HoMER, but couldn't find much). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources; all the references are self-referential. Maybe someday this group will come out with something to make them notable, but I'm not seeing any evidence of notability now. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage on article subject. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alkohola litar[edit]

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

The song lacks any level of notability, it fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a coproduction by multiple artists, so we cannot redirect to any of them. The sole assertion of significance, that "its [sic] one of the most popular songs in Balkans of [2014]," is unsourced. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ljubavni maneken (song)[edit]

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

This song lacks any notability, it fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Gay[edit]

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

Created in 2011 by a WP:SPA, who also uploaded the images found in the article, it has has only one peripheral reference. Searches are complicated by the common name of the subject. After trying to clean up embedded edits riffing on the name ("Gay"), and searching for references, I conclude it fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried several different searches to find reliable sources, and the only thing I found was a short blurb about this fellow giving a gun from the Battle of Little Big Horn to a state historical society. Definitely not enough coverage to make an article out of, which makes me wonder how much of this page is original research or oral family history. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible hoax) I've had some fun Googling for the poem. Here (p.86) it is in 1899 in an opinion piece on osteopathy. Here it is attributed to "Prince of Quacks" Dr. Francis Tumblety, circa 1860, who sounds like quite a character, and who Wikipedia says "earned a small fortune posing as an "Indian Herb" doctor throughout the United States and Canada", similar to James W. Gay who "was a herbal Indian medicine man". Our article also says he moved to St Louis, Missouri, while James W. Gay "joined the Pawnees on the Missouri River". Between these overlaps and the absence of accessible sources, my suspicion is that this is a hoax.

I see there's a 90 page book about him, which was the only source in the first version of the article. The last version as edited by the article creator, one day later, dropped the book but tried citing the home pages of various Indian tribes, plus http://www.crystalinks.com/, a "metaphysics and science" page, plus the remaining Andersonville Prison reference, which doesn't include the words "Gay" or "Clothier" (his original name) at all. All very odd. Either way, I can't find online sources to back up any claim about him, so it should be deleted for failing WP:V. Mortee (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the "Clothier" name was added in this edit, I think it can safely be ignored. Mortee (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delet extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. THis is an example of sloppily written articles that make all sorts of claims with no basis in fact. There are two levels of hoaxing that seem to be potentially going on, and no sources to indicate which one it is. On one level James W. Gay may be a 21st-century invention. Nothing in our current sources indicates otherwise. On the other level, he may have invented a false history of himself in the 19th-century. Rachel Dolezal was not the first Euro-American person to falsely claim non-European ancestry. Many, many people either made such a claim in the 19th-century, or covered up their Afircan roots with false native ancestry claims. Some have traced some of this to attempts by those in the southern US to bolster their rights to hold other people in subjecgation in part by bolstering their political power with deep claims of right to the area by claiming a connection to pre-European inhabitiants. In Gay's case, assuming that he is not just a 21-st century invention, false claims of Native American roots would have bolstered his credentials to practice alternative medicine. However as has been pointed out we essentially lack any sources that show anything about Gay.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it is a hoax as i think this is his prison record and if you read the preview of the book it gives a couple of autobiographical pages. However there does not seem to be any sources to suggest he is notable. Mattg82 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to agree that as it is written we need much more sources otherwise this looks like original research. However, this is the kind of article that fits well with Wikipedia. If proper sources can be found, I say keep it. If not, it should be deleted. Perhaps an enthusiastic editor will agree to take custody of the article and Userfy until it can be properly sourced?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - on newspapers.com I find a few things. One, I find a James W. Gay who was an opinionated doctor in Illinois in the late 1890s[20]. I find a Dr. James W. Gay who was Ojibwe living in Winfield, Kansas and predicting floods[21]. I find a newspaper ad for probably the same person also in Winfield[22]. Also in Winfield a Dr. James W. Gay participated in a veterans event[23]. I find that note about him giving a rifle to a historic association[24].This is enough to me to think that while Gay may have been involved in hoaxes, the hoax is not on us, so to speak. I also found an article about an orphan son of an Indian agent in the 1850s named James W. Gay[25], which might be an interesting lead on this individual's early life. That said, I agree that the details in this article fail WP:V and WP:OR. I do not think there is enough from what I've found on newspapers.com (linked above), on google books, or elsewhere that would allow for an article to be written that clearly does not fail these policies. I would support userfication if someone thought they could clean things up and would be happy to assist, but I do not think I would succeed at such a task with what I've found. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive! I can't view any of the newspapers.com results but now I'm tempted to buy a subscription just to go squirrelling. Thank you for the digging you've done. Mortee (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:TWL, wikipedia editors with 6+ months and 500+ edits are usually eligible for free accounts with a number of great resources. My favorites are newspapers.com and ProjectMUSE (I am the coordinator with ProjectMUSE - which gives full access to many books by academic publishers). Another newspaper site that is less user-friendly but similar in size with accounts available is newspaperarchive.com. I could go on about some of the other great resources, feel free to ask if you (anyone) have any questions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:17, 17 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nawat Itsaragrisil[edit]

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

The person has no significant coverage in multiple valid sources. The article fails WP:GNG Richie Campbell (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known if not uncontroversial media figure. Has been profiled by Thansettakij[26], Post Today[27] and Khwan Ruean[28], in addition to the Manager piece already cited in the article, to give a few examples. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per references provided by Paul_012 above. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 01:20, 19 January 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. For now but can come back when there is something to say. Drop me a note to undelete if required at the time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send in Stewie, Please[edit]

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

This article is on a Family Guy episode that is two months away from being aired, while also having no features that would make it a notable episode. The episode fails WP:GNG and even if the article were to have notability, the episode's article should be made around the air-date. Also the two references repeat the same information. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vorbee (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not all Family Guy episodes are notable enough to have an individual article and at this stage there is no way of knowing if this one will be. Equally at 2 months out it is not even guaranteed it will be broadcast on the reported date, the title could change etc. Dunarc (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't need a crystal ball. We already have reliable coverage of the scheduled release from reliable sources. Filmed media aren't made the day of and we certainly don't have to wait for a notable project to be released before we include it. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @FloridaArmy: There was an earlier episode of Family Guy that was originally called "Brian dates a bitch". 2 weeks before airing it got a name change to "Boy dog meets girl dog". This article has shown no notability and should not be made 2 months before an air-date. Numerous changes could happen. Also, the episode could easily be a standard Family Guy episode that doesn't deserve its own article. AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable it should. If the name changes the article gets updated. Names of things change all the time. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with regret. Despite my opinions on the matter, the consensus appears to be that all Family Guy episodes are notable. There's enough coverage of this one (and March is close enough) that there's no reason to delete an article that will be re-created in the near future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@power~enwiki I have no idea where you're getting the idea that there's any consensus on the matter of each Family Guy episode being notable. Please, have a look at recent seasons and you'll notice that I have been deleting the articles which have no content beyond plot summaries and there are some other users doing the same. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 01:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I picked three seasons arbitrarily (3, 7, and 13), and all the individual episodes appear to have stand-alone pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:38, 22 January 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. Closing this; irredeemably non-notable and promotional. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epicstep[edit]

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

essentially promotional article (check the creator name) with nothing to suggest that the term has any broad currency. TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEO. Appears to be made up genre by a musician who uses it to describe his own work. No need to merge because it's already all over his own page. I don't think a redirect is particularly warranted either - I don't think it's a very likely search term - the artist himself is probably a borderline case for Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon closer inspection, the artists page was speedy deleted in 2015 and recreated just today. Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and The Siren (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) too. – Athaenara ✉ 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree with this too. Just to clarify the connection for the closing admin, and any other future participants: The Siren (artist) is a music artist who claims to have invented the music genre of Epicstep. Both articles are both very overly-promotional in tone, and both were created by a user who openly admitted to being the manager of "The Siren". Both are big WP:COI/WP:PROMOTION issues. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 19 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Pearson[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG: I found no coverage in reliable secondary sources. The author moved it to mainspace after an AfC draft was rejected due to lack of notability. Rentier (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Draft. Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST. A single appearance on a game show where the article focused more on her opponent doesn't constitute significant coverage. Magazines she edits in aren't significant bodies of work. The programme in which she presents isn't Wikipedia notable. Note, you should just boldly move it back to Draft next time. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails notability, is ORPHAN, likely a vanity page, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Moving back to Draft does not solve notability issue. Per AngusWOOF, article subject only is known for one event so naturally fails WP:BLP1E (actually, fails all three criteria there), and I doubt she was substantially notable enough in the show's history to warrant any coverage. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 04:25, 23 January 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. Per CRYSTAL and if its political it can be covered in that article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cliffs Golf Resort[edit]

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

Non notable yet to be built golf course Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Seems to early. Best to wait until its at least been built, otherwise it's simply a construction site. Nigej (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon, and of questionable notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is only a proposed golf course, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vorbee (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - controversial issue in upcoming state government election. Bahudhara (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Lots of very substantial coverage of this major and controversial project. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Bahudhara re: political significance of this development project. Have also expanded the article with more info on the course's designer, who is an author of numerous books on golf and golf courses. --Danimations (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON & has a whiff of promotionalism about it, as in: "...also intends to build a luxury clubhouse lodge, a 180-bed hotel and potentially restaurants, conference facilities, a luxury day spa..."; "...co-designed by Darius Oliver,[9] who previously designed a coastal golf course at Cape Wickham, Tasmania which opened in 2015.[10] Oliver is the author of a series of several books on golf..." etc. Wikipedia is not a place to house the resort's promotional materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian warriors[edit]

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

This article was the subject of a discussion at INB, where folks including myself raised several concerns. The scope of the list is far too large. It is also too vague, as "warrior" is not clearly defined. The article includes both historical and mythological people. It has a caste-based classification system that has no encyclopedic basis. Finally, its sourcing is terrible, and there is little evidence that the subject of this list has been treated as a single topic by reliable sources. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment at the linked India Project thread, and those of others there. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly-sourced list that includes mythological, legendary and historical figures, many of whom were not warriors. No such list exists for other countries. Category:Lists of Indian military personnel and Category:Lists of Indian monarchs are better places for this. utcursch | talk 15:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment at the linked WT:INDIA thread. --regentspark (comment) 16:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Vanamonde as per discussion at INB Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion at WT:IN. The article has incorporated mythology with history. MT Train^Discuss 18:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. From memory, several similar lists which combined mythical with actual Indian soldiers and warriors have been deleted. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly keep -- I am not sure that an article such as this needs references. If the problem is combining history and myth/legend, the answer is to split. The main function of such list articles is as a subject index, but that is done much better done by categories. In the early days of WP, lists were useful in identifying articles that were needed as red links. Nevertheless this is a discussion that needs to be had in a wider context than a single article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Define warrior. We have a list of Indian freedom fighters but what is to stop those being added to this list also? (Actually, some are already there.) It is far, far too vague. - Sitush (talk) 22:28, 20 January 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 Draftify — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Edwin van der Heide[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, has WP:COI [29] Kleuske (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is written in a promotional style, however reliable sources do exist to establish the person's notability. Have a look in Google books, he's notable. Re the COI, it's not a good thing to have, but it plays no role in deletion. 198.58.161.137 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up the promo, and properly cite. The awards are significant, if focused in a short period of time:
- Honorary mention, Transmediale, Berlin, 2001
- Honorary mention, interactive art, Ars Electronica Festival, Linz, Austria, 2001
- Honorary mention, Vida 5.0 Artificial Life International Competition, Madrid, Spain, 2002 --Theredproject (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gah, this should have been created in draft space and developed there. An unsourced article about a living person should not be in main space, and editors with a conflict of interest should put new articles through WP:AFC, as should new editors. I have asked the creator at their Talk page (here) if they would be willing to have this draftified. So... User:Kleuske, User:Babymissfortune, 198.58.161.137, and User:Theredproject would you please confirm you would be OK with draftification? Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems here. Kleuske (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftification works for me. --Theredproject (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is anybody else a little shocked that a student is tasked to write a Wikipedia article about their supervisor,[30] and, I presume, needs to have this assignment accepted by that supervisor in order to pass the course? We have rules about paid editing, but not about this AFAIK. But it seems quite similar to me — immoral, anyway. Not on the part of the student, but of the supervisor and article subject. Just my 2 öre. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes im shocked, but not very surprised. But it's not "money, goods or services", although you could argue that 'services' includes passing the course. Perhaps it's an idea to amend WP:PAID. Kleuske (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The creator said "yes" to draftification so I am going to try to pull all the levers to make that happen now... Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 21 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ispirer Systems[edit]

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

An article by a WP:SPA but without a WP:DISCLOSE declaration. I proposed deletion with the rationale " An article sourced to press releases and WP:USERGENERATED sites about the company's products. No evidence provided or found to show that the company is of encyclopaedic notability." The Prod notice was removed by another new WP:SPA account, with a statement on the Talk page which indicates affiliation ("our page", etc.). I am now bringing the article to AfD with the same rationale as my earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why even look at the sources when they have names like "1888pressrelease.com" - (not even the best in press releases, what scrubs) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quite apart from the paid editing / CoI issue, this company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,@AllyD:. I wanted to ask you, could you please put this article in draft space? Or give some more time till the deletion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana Zamorina (talk • contribs)

The article was previously in Draft space and was moved into main space ([31], [32]). Whether draft or published, what is in question here is whether encyclopaedic notability can be demonstrated from independent in-depth coverage, and it is best to pursue that discussion to conclusion. And I remind you again about WP:DISCLOSE. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:CORPDEPTH and written in a promotion manner. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,@AllyD:. I got your point. As to WP:DISCLOSE i wrote here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diana_Zamorina#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest that currently i work at this company. And my work was to translate the existing article in Russian. @CASSIOPEIA:i assure you that this article is not for promoting, its just this company's history. A deleted the extract about Ispirer's product as it might be considered as promo.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loft Music[edit]

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

This is one of a series of new articles on recordings by Thea Gilmore. Which I favour redirecting to the artist. My change to a redirect was undone by the page creator; subsequently user:Boleyn prodded it but the prod was removed by user:Michig with the edit summary "deproded - unsourced but notable". However, a quick search did not throw up anything that I consider solid enough to confer notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just a quick Google found reviews from PopMatters and the Manchester Evening News, with further coverage here. A more thorough search, including print sources, would almost certainly find more. --Michig (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Here's another one - the Boston Globe picking it in their top albums of 2005. --Michig (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You appear to have also AfD tagged Rules For Jokers but the tag links to this discussion, where it has not been bundled. Two reviews were also easily found for this album ([33], [34]). --Michig (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing so while you added the above. I am not really convinced by the references.TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop bundling AFDs like this? Not only have you bungled the implementation of these bundled AFDs multiple times now, but separate subjects like this really shouldn't be bundled anyways. The notability of these two releases are completely separate situations, just as they were with Thrash Anthems and Thrash Anthems II you've done recently. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 3 hours, and you still haven't addended it. Nor should you - they are 2 separate albums with 2 separate scenarios neededing to be discussed for their notability. I've removed the notice from the Rules For Jokers page. If you want to discuss it, create a proper separate AFD discussion for it. It does not belong here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep: nothing wrong with the PopMatters and Boston Globe reviews, and although it's a local paper, the Manchester Evening News is one of the UK's best-known and most respected local papers, and as Gilmore isn't from Manchester, it can't be accused of being biased to promoting local artists. It's true that one or two more reviews from music magazines would help to establish notability, but as Gilmore's previous album Avalanche was her chart breakthrough, and this album contains cover versions of many well-known songs, I'd be pretty confident that this record attracted enough attention to be reviewed in Q, and possibly in Mojo and Uncut as well. It looks like the album was released in June 2004, rather than 2003, as stated in the article at present. Richard3120 (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Michig's sources above. That's enough to meet the WP:GNG. (Especially stuff like PopMatters and Boston Globe - that's pretty high level stuff.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 16 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Mohin[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Environmental corporate person, currently CEO of GRI, previously various sustainability positions in various companies, and a short stint in the EPA. Sourcing in article doesn't establish SIGCOV (basically LinkedIn, his webpage, and author profiles in place he's written (Huffington Post, a Book in Amazon), a a broken bloomberg executive profile link (that exists for just about any executive in America (and elsewhere). Article also has style (e.g. use of private name) and puffery issues (the description of his role at the EPA, his first position as a 24 year old, seems a bit exaggerated (and is self-sourced)). Sources in my BEFORE don't show the SIGCOV required - he is interviewed/quoted occasionally, but not to the level I'd expect to pass GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purdey Fitzherbert[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. Run-of-the-mill artist. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be PROMO (with an artist's statement) and has insufficient sourcing. May be a fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has been up for 5 years and still there isn't any sourcing that I could find. Just gallery representation, which isn't enough. --Theredproject (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--yeah, pity, but I can't find anything helpful either. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing in article, and nothing turns up in search.198.58.161.137 (talk) 12:08, 16 January 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. Minimal participation but good discussion of sourcing that clearly doesn't pass muster Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanweck[edit]

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

Lack of WP:CORPDEPTH for this fairly small (raised 10 million USD last round, 15-249 employees in 2017 per award) Fintech award. BEFORE doesn't bring much that isn't the article. Many of the sources in the article are passing mentions. Some are not RS. The book "Architects of Electronic Trading" is an interview with the company founder (on FPGAs/GPUs in financial applications). Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources fail WP:ORGIND - anything more than a listing etc being press releases and the like. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the original author. I am reviewing the feedback, and will reply again by Friday, January 18. B2BSaaSCMO (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at some Wikipedia pages for similar companies. Following are some of the key reasons we believe the entry should remain. B2BSaaSCMO (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Hanweck’s source articles include premium, high circulation publications. E.g. The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, BBC News, Forbes, and American Banker B2BSaaSCMO (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanweck is notable for:

(2) GPU-based computing: Hanweck was the first mover in introducing GPU-based computing to the financial services industry, as stated in the article. This was a step-change in technology for processing big data in finance and is an approach that has now been adopted more widely throughout the financial services industry since. B2BSaaSCMO (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanweck is recognized as a pioneer and leader by significant players in the technology industry such as NVIDIA, who showcase Hanweck’s technology on their own websites ^[2] and invite Hanweck executives to share their expertise in their own marketing efforts ^[3]. B2BSaaSCMO (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Powering Solutions by Leading Firms in the space: Fidessa announced it is relying on Hanweck data in its premiere product offering: ^[4], and Saxo Bank provides Hanweck data to its global client base serving more than 180 countries: ^[5] B2BSaaSCMO (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Options Market Influence: Hanweck’s customers include the majority of the largest US banks, asset managers and hedge funds with over $100 billion in assets under management, as well as proprietary trading firms active in the derivatives markets. B2BSaaSCMO (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

The four references provided are press releases, events, and a case study by a customer. There is no coverage in bloomberg in the article, what there is is a company profile (that exists for just about every private company in the US) . The WSJ piece [35] - mentions Hanweck twice in the context of quoting data provided from them. BBC coverage is local news about opening a branch office - [36]. Both Forbes articles are by contributors, not by staff, and one is a rehash of the data in the WSJ article (just quoting the data on the options market in one paragraph). Coverage in American Banker is six lines about a financing round.Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 22 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchir Modi[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. His roles look to be largely in companies owned by his father - WP:NOTINHERITED appiles. Promotional tone. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to the needed level of significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm finding plenty of very subatantial coverage. here's a Google News search with many articles about him, his leading role in cricket, his business activities, and his lifestyle and travels. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can all do a search - if these articles really do meet WP:SIGCOV, why not add something to the article please. Edwardx (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are already numerous citations in that article but they aren't properly formatted so it's difficult to see what they are. I did a Google News search (linked above) and fpund plenty of other sources covering this subject and the aspects of his life I noted above. This subatantial coverage establishes notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTINHERITED does applies here. Marginally notable because of his father. Capitals00 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Yake[edit]

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

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Producers are rarely notable, and all the films she has worked on look barely notable. Edwardx (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Getting a nomination at a top-level national film or television award, like the Genie Awards or the Gemini Awards, is a valid notability claim for a film/TV producer (it's basically the most solid notability claim that a producer can make, in fact), and she indeed has one or more nominations at each of the Genies and the Geminis — no, at the Oscar/Emmy/BAFTA/CSA level a win is not necessary, but rather a mere nomination is entirely sufficient. And while it's true that this article isn't well-referenced as written, a ProQuest search does bring up 74 hits for her — not all of those are going to be useful, because some of them are just namechecks of her existence in lists of television award juries, but enough of them are solid. The issue here is not that SIGCOV doesn't exist — it's that the biggest chunk of SIGCOV happened around 2005 when she had a film up for Best Picture at the Genies, and so would not be expected to turn up in a simple Google search (Google is not good at locating media coverage that's more than a year or two old). But it does exist, and I'm in the process of adding it to the article right now. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but looking at the most significant movie she has a production credit for, It's All Gone Pete Tong, she was one of 12 producers, and is listed as "producer: Canada", presumably just a producer for the part of the film shot in Canada. Big stretch to call it "her" film. Edwardx (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not how film works. The fact is that a Best Picture nomination (and award if it wins) at the Oscars or the BAFTAs or the CSAs goes only to the person or people whose credit is just "producer" without "associate", "executive" or "line" in front of it. Associate and line producers are junior figures who assist in the production process, but are not the main leaders of it, and executive producer is an honorary credit usually given to the film's funders, not an indication that the person actually did any work. So who a film's producers are, for the purposes of an award nomination or an encyclopedic notability claim, is determined by who has the title "producer" without executive or line or associate modifiers. At the level of who is considered a film's producer for the sake of an award nomination that goes to producers, and therefore toward the wikinotability of said producers, the film had only three producers: Allan Niblo, James Richardson, and Elizabeth Yake.
At any rate, the bottom line is that the Genie Awards included her name as one of the three nominees — and the bottom line is that every single person whose name appears in Canadian Screen Award for Best Motion Picture at all is automatically a valid article topic by virtue of that nomination itself. Being named in that list means they qualify to have an article, period, because being a nominee for a major film award is a notability claim that gets a filmmaker into Wikipedia right on its face — we're not actually there yet, I grant, but every single name in that list has to eventually become a blue link without exception. And even if you still disagree, I've already sourced her well enough to pass WP:GNG regardless. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was not aware of this SNG for the producers of Canadian Screen Award for Best Motion Picture nominees, and am unable to find it. I'm willing to AGF on the all offline references, but is there nothing available online? Edwardx (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a requirement that references be online. As long as they're reliable sources, we don't care whether they came from a Google search or a news retrieval database like ProQuest or a microfilm or an archived print copy. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BIO per numerous awards and nominations notable to Canada. WP:CREATIVE applies to such. [37] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the article's accuracy. It says she was nominated or won various film awards but she is a producer. Was she the producer on films that won awards or did she win the awards? I don't think this is a minor difference. I have no objection to saying "She produced XYZ which won.." but being one of the producers of a project and winning an award oneself are not the same. I think it's an issue of advertisement and promotion. And these assertions need citations. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)↓[reply]

"Was she the producer on films that won awards or did she win the awards?" When a film wins an award, such as "Best Picture" at the Oscars or the Canadian Screen Awards or a film festival, would you like to guess who the award's recipient is? The film's producer(s). So it's not a question of "or" — it's impossible for either half of that sentence to be true independently of the other in an either/or scenario, because they both mean exactly the same thing and are entirely inseparable from each other. Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat and a news search, the coverage is weak but I believe there's enough there to write a decent encyclopedia article, not least on her contributions to the production of notable films. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 17 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanisha Mittal[edit]

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

Not finding enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional tone. Created by a now-banned editor. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Edwardx (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Edwardx (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wasting huge amounts of money on a wedding is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Kitty Spencer[edit]

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

As far as I can see, this woman has done nothing of note. Being "a niece of Diana, Princess of Wales" does not confer notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Perhaps a redirect to her father's article would be better. Edwardx (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being mentioned in vacuous articles is not a sign of notability. Nor is being a guest at a wedding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject needs to be notable to have a stand alone article in Wikipedia. This falls under WP:INVALIDBIO as being a niece to Diana is not notable enough. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, agree has done nothing notable. Tacyarg (talk) 22:42, 22 January 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. Not much discussion, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Federal income tax rates of the United States by year[edit]

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

Whilst I appreciate the intent, this is not an encyclopaedia article; it's a (very lengthy) collection of statistics sourced entirely from primary government documents. The history of the US federal income tax is already well covered at Income tax in the United States#History, which includes a more sensible summary of this data in tabulated and graph formats. – Joe (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, this somewhat fails WP:NOT (WP:RAWDATA and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK) and doesn't really provide the kind of context for encyclopedic content that the the Income Tax history page does. Also, I agree that there are OR concerns as the article is based on primary sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1; the nomination is only proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese people who conserve Article 9[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Overlaps with The Nobel Peace Prize for Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution and should be merged with that Rathfelder (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. 1. AfDs are not for mergers, they are for deletions. 2. The article you want to "delete" is the older and more general one, the merge target is the newer and less general one. Merging the other way around, if a merge is needed, is the way to go. Fram (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as explained by Fram. The article title sounds weird but proves to be notable -- see Japan Daily Press, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weird title but contains reliably sourced content.AfD is not for forced merger, nominator should start merge discussion at the appropriate talkpage. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Gabrielle Abiola Adeniran[edit]

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

I'm having difficulty verifying the notability of this person. The only useable source would seem to be the Life magazine article, which I don't have access to. However, I suspect it has photos of the subject rather than biographical information. As far as I can tell, the subject fails WP:ANYBIO. - MrX 18:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sense that the lack of online sources on this subject is as a result of low digital penetration during her time. Even if this is not kept; being a biography of living person with insufficient verifiable sources, I propose a soft delete, because my informal findings suggest that she was the first Nigerian woman to attain certain hallmark accomplishment in the 1970s and 1980s.HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete sources like doctors-register can help fill in the details of a fuller bio when they're available but, as of now, it's not enough to sustain her ... however, as Gene93k noted, this may be a case of digital penetration Burley22 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:16, 15 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Saeed[edit]

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

Local priest sourced with affiliated Catholic site 'ucanews.com'. Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apostolic administrators who have not been consecrated bishops are not notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 17 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tumasi Quissa[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry a WP:GNG pass. The only notability claim here is that he released an album, and the only source is a single blog entry from a single radio program -- but even notability because radio airplay requires national networks, not single-station playlists. This was a good faith creation at the time, as our notability and sourcing standards for musicians were a lot looser in 2009 than they are today, but under the current notability and sourcing standards there's just not enough substance or sourcing to deem him notable for anything more than existing. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a book source. Notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That "book source" is his minibio and submission in an anthology he was a contributor to, which is a directly affiliated primary source and not notability-assisting coverage about him. We require multiple sources that are reliable and independent and substantive, not just a brief contributor blurb and a blog entry. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability here is a narrow one (“…names [that] are known in the North…”), but I believe an article is justified given the mentions in various encyclopedias and books, some offering commentary on the performer’s style and contributions:

The Encyclopedia of Native Music, a brief individual entry
Nord, Volumes 28-31, Canada. Ministère des affaires indiennes et du Nord canadien: The Inuit, too, find themes that speak of the northern condition with honesty and depth of emotion. Tumasi Quissa, an Inuk performer whose vitality and spirt are probably unmatched, has the ability to assume the character of the persons he sings about. These range from old men and women, to comic dialogues about the aged.
Cahiers de musiques traditionnelles, Issue 13 - Page 80, 2000 Le chanteur Tumasi Quissa d' Akulivik, par exemple, décrit les plaisirs de la chasse sur l'air des «Chevaliers de la table ronde»
The Beaver - Page 65 1981: Record #NCB502 Cassette #5NCB502) 'Better Times' — Tumasi Quissa: A gifted carver, musician and impressionistic singer of great vitality and spirit, who assumes the character of the person he sings about.
The Concise Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature William Toye – 2001: Many of the authors published in their pages were collected and reprinted in Northern voices: Inuit writing in English (1988) edited by Penny Petrone, which has helped Inuit writers to achieve wider recognition and critical attention in southern Canada. Petrone includes writers whose names are known in the North: Ruth Qanatsiaq, Sam Metcalfe, Willie Thrasher, Leah Idlout d'Argencourt, Tumasi Quissa…

I believe that this is sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 18 January 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. For now but ping me or drop me a note if you find sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have restored this per sources provided st [38]. Please start a new discussion if you disagree. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make Millions[edit]

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

Article does not assert its notability through third party reliable sources. Yes, this game is from 1984 and most sources will be offline so harder to locate, but atm I can't see any. Coin945 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment This one is a tough one, due to the fact that it's from 1984, and was released really early in the Macs lifespan (Mac was also released in 1984). I can't find online sources, and there is no mention on MobyGames, but maybe someone who's a bit cleverer with archives might find something. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unable to establish notability through multiple reliable sources. There maybe some old magazines that covered it but I did a metadata search on archive.org which didn't turn up anything fruitful. Mattg82 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TEMA (group)[edit]

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

Potential WP:BLP problems galore and bar primary external links, unsourced. Don't seem to pass muster for WP:NBAND either. Mattg82 (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per norm - fails WP:BAND. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:12, 15 January 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. needs more sources is the definition of non-notable. if you get sources let me know. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Transit Commission bus fleet[edit]

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

Excessive amount of trivia that belongs on a bus enthusiasts fan site. WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOTTRIVIA Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs more sources and add some more context for each bus series, just like Toronto streetcar system rolling stock and Toronto subway rolling stock. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure I'd call encyclopedic information about buses something that needs to be on a "fan site".70.27.132.69 (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC) — 70.27.132.69 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Ajf773 (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By any reasonable standard this level of detail belongs on a transit fan site, and a much reduced summary merged back to the main article. But standards here have declined a lot, so I'm sure this will be kept and will gradually fester into an open sore of incomplete and outdated information when whoever was keeping track of individual buses loses interest or whatever. Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A brief summary of the buses in the current and past fleets (by types, years and ranges of fleet nos.) is the most that is potentially worthwhile to include in table form on Wikipedia (and can be merged into the main article), and even that information should cite reliable sources (which excludes forums, as noted under WP:USERGENERATED). Lists like this one – detailing every individual bus that is, or no longer is, in service – contain far too much detail for Wikipedia. The place for that kind of detail are sites like the Canadian Public Transit Discussion Board, which are maintained by and for transit fans and which don't need to cite sources. Wikipedia has a much broader audience and has higher standards regarding sourcing. The other similarly detailed transit fleet lists on Wikipedia should also be deleted. Bus fans (of which I am one) can find that info. on CPTDB, among other places. – SJ Morg (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11. Performed by by Elahrairah. (non-admin closure) Kb.au (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australia 21[edit]

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

Local organization with no notability. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, certainly fails WP:NCORP and WP:NOTPROMO. Surprised this isn't an A7. Ajf773 (talk) 04:56, 16 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Lemmens[edit]

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

Good work but not worth for entry on an encyclopedia. Nothing significant in sources. Many are dead-links by Catholic affiliate site UCA. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"She received the Sitara-i-Quaid-i-Azam (Order of the Great Leader) on March 23, 1989 from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, one of the highest honors given to foreign nationals. President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto attended the ceremony". FloridaArmy (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is third in order and no one can be notable solely based on this. Störm (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep UCA is fine as a source for verification and notability purposes. She is notable for her social services, including as the founder of Darul Sakun [39] and also the recipient of a high-level recognition award as pointed out above. Mar4d (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, covered in many sources: "Gertrude Lemmens, Franziskanerin aus den Niederlan- Orden für Ordensfrau: Ghulam Khan Foto: dpa den, wurde vom pakistanischen Staatspräsidenten Ghulam Ishaq Khan wegen ihres Engagements für körperlich und geistig Behinderte sowie für Alte und Obdachlose mit dem Sitara-i-Quaid-i-Aram- Preis ausgezeichnet. Schwester Gertrude gilt als die „Mutter Teresa von Pakistan"" --Soman (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A 'doer' person, not just a 'talker'. A Dutch nun who spent 64 years of her life taking care of mentally handicapped people, orphans and the aged in Karachi. On her death in 2000, both major English language newspapers of Karachi Dawn (newspaper), The Express Tribune gave her news coverage ( her obituary and articles) recognizing her services. See ^[1] ^[2] 3 4. Her award in 1989, mentioned above by others, by the President of Pakistan can also be backed up by newspaper references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:22, 21 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WAVE Studio[edit]

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Local religious studio with no notability. Clearly not worth for encyclopedia. Almost sourced from UCA, Catholic site in Asia. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete "So far, we have produced 124 audio cassettes, 22 video cassettes, 30 VCDs and six DVDs. These include six albums for children containing songs about ethics and morals." Says it all. Almost entirely self-sourced; this page in WP has been hijacked to serve as a proxy for their website. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primary Schools at Alipurduar-II Block[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR and primary schools are not considered notable. To add, none in the list have articles nor are they referenced. MT Train^Discuss 08:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC) MT Train^Discuss 08:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 10:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 10:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 10:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Both fail WP:LISTN. Not even worth cleaning up nor redirecting to anywhere. Ajf773 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with application of WP:NOTDIR. Non-notable schools, listed for no good reason, unreferenced and, as has been suggested, not meriting a redirect anywhere else. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:18, 17 January 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. AFD is not clean up. If its notable but needs cleanup then unless TNT applies (which no-one suggests) it can wait its turn (or the heat death of universe) or some such. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum politics[edit]

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

Unfocused messy synthesis of political things that happen to be about petroleum. Reads more like an essay, large portions unsourced since 2009. If this is a notable topic, then WP:TNT is needed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject needs to be covered, in my view. The article needs editing, not deleting. Unless Wikipedians feel the subject should be suppressed.Wetman (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important geopolitical topic. Could the article be improved? Of course. But the nominator has greatly exaggerated the scope of issues: the majority of the article is sourced, it provides a satisfactory start to the major sub-topics, with hatnotes to main articles, and it's not an essay. What's there should be further improved, not deleted. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Υπογράφω: So are you going to fix it, or are you going to just let the article fester and rot forever? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfocused, vague nomination statement. The intersection of petroleum and politics in global world today needs no long explanation. The unsourced content can be removed but that's not reason for deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: So are you going to fix it, or are you going to just let the article fester and rot forever? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VOLUNTEER, I am under no obligation to improve it. All I know it is notable and has solid verfiable sources while you're only on deletion spree of clearly notable topics. Although you now promise to stop that. If you don't want see it "rot" SO FIX IT. Nobody stops you. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:20, 17 January 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. ansh 666 02:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Schwanz[edit]

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

Article has only one source, and does not indicate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Dewitt (talk • contribs) 04:02, December 7, 2017 (UTC)

Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Kevin Dewitt: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 15 January 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. MER-C 13:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Leupp[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO: the sources are mostly a collection of self-published articles (e.g. Forbes contributor network), interviews and trivial mentions. Even the probably strongest source - the Entrepreneur.com article - contains very little biographical detail and is mostly about his company. The company itself likely fails WP:NCORP. Rentier (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just took a look, removed some unsubstantiated claims and poor writing. Disagree that this fails WP:SIGCOV; at worst, the company itself seems to pass WP:NCORP, so this could be turned into an article on PromoAffiliates? Did find an article in Fox News if that helps. 111.93.66.66 (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the company passes NCORP (I'm not sure it does), a new article can be created for it and this one turned into a redirect. The Fox News link is a mirror of the entrepreneur.com article that I mentioned in the nomination - not enough biographical detail. The potential notability of the company does not confer notability on the founder per WP:NOTINHERITED. Rentier (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it passes GNG. I am not much of a deletionist so I would like this kept. I think it can be improved recent edits are a pretty good start. Bottom line is, the guy seems notable enough, should be kept and improved. Elektricity (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — Elektricity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is established by very substantial coverage such as the bylined Forbes artocle entirely about this subject. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please distinguish Forbes the magazine from its "contributor network". The latter is a collection of personal blogs with no editorial oversight or fact-checking. The article contributes nothing to notability. Similarly, the entrepreneur.com article is a guest post rather than an editorially-vetted magazine article. Rentier (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of media contract to independent journalists for content. The article is not a personal blog it's a news piece. Perfectly appropriate. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources fall under WP:NEWSBLOG at best and WP:USERGENERATED at worst. They are not to be used for establishing notability. This was discussed many times before [40]. Forbes contributors are not generally journalists. They are ~~random~~ lightly vetted people who write personal opinion pieces. They are not generally paid for this. Rentier (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the entries you linked? The first notes established writers of blogs can be used. Thisbisnt a blog, it's an article in a business news magazine. And usergenerated applies to personal websites and such. The article author is a very well established tech contributor who's articles are perfectly legit. He clearly has expertise and is hinself a tech exec. They aren't fluff pieces but valid articles on subjects of significance such as this entrepreneur. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem unwilling to admit the difference between the magazine and the network of personal blogs by independent contributors. The author has no credentials whatsoever as a journalist, and he is not an established expert on business or technology. Rentier (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem unwilling to admit that the piece is a news article and not a blog entry written by an expert in the field. The truth matters. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fooey. I don't think I have ever seen forbes.com/sites used as a reliable source. RSN is full of determinations that it is unsuitable. E.g. archive 207, "the usual outcome when forbes.com/sites/ ends up here". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references here consist of unedited blog posts on various sites, rather than independent editorial content, so is neither independent nor reliable. I can find nothing better. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a businessperson affiliated with a nn entity (PromoAffiliates in this case) is almost always a GNG / WP:ANYBIO fail. This is the case here. A promotional article and a tribute page. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. Suggestion above that PromoAffiliates could be an article is way off the mark. The article creator is most likely a block evading sock; see: Special:Contributions/WathingMog -- a dozen or so of minor edits to get autoconfirmed (presumably) and then, boom, a 12,000-character article in a single edit. WP:DENY applies here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 18 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easemon[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NSOFT by a wide margin. Virtually no independent coverage. Rentier (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Available sources are either advert material, in-house productions, or deal with the topic of employee monitoring in general. The product itself does not appear to have received any substantial third party coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Elmidae said. --Calton | Talk 01:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Abu Thuraya[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER (low ranking), and WP:NPOL (minor activism). His death did receive some brief coverage, however WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E would preclude this as grounds for notability, and coverage was mainly in relation to the flareup of violence in Decmber 2017. Icewhiz (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the circumstances of his death shot in his wheelchair by an Israeli sniper is a controversial and non- routine event that deserves an article and bypasses WP:BLP1E as it is the event rather than the person which is most significant. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it could be merged though to an appropriate article of the event Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was allegedly shot (there is actually some controversy over this, as well as no confirmation as to the identity/nationality of the shooter) while in the front line of a violent riot on an international border fence - not particularly noteworthy besides him being in a wheelchair at the time.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news, the circumstances of his death are no more than a news story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a minor player who died.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial; not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 20:30, 18 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One-Stop Fun Shop[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation. Can be a footnote in the articles of those games. Coin945 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentions but no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. JOE BRO 64 01:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was a review for Review Corner, macHOME, and PC Mag. But, I will say, this is probably the worst written article I've read in a while. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; game has been reviewed by multiple RSes. Phediuk (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 15 January 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. per detailed analysis of sources by delete side. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elegant Hotels Group[edit]

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

1. NN corp, fails especially WP:CORPDEPTH 2. are we a business directory nowadays? Widefox; talk 21:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article. I felt that being the largest independent hotel operator in Barbados and Barbados' largest hotel industry employer would swing it. They have also had a fair amount of press coverage. Happy to hear opinions Uhooep (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain owning 7 hotels isn't enough around here per se for inherent notability - there's always a largest operator when the geographical area is small enough, but then it's of local concern rather than notable (for ever) in a global encyclopedia (sure, it's a country)...

or we go by notability for example these sources are routine coverage not counting for notabilty Elegant Hotels striving for more ...reviews pricing strategy after fall in pound .

Separately, we're WP:NOTDIRECTORY and notability (which isn't clear to me) is not the only grounds for deletion, but promotion and WP:NOT generally, for example WP:PROMOTION ...local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts..etc etc. Widefox; talk 23:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment other hotel operators have wikipedia articles and fewer properties such as Beaches Resorts (3 resorts), Couples Resorts (4 resorts), and Fiesta hotels (7 brands?). Others such as Sandals Resorts (15 resorts) also have articles. I agree it should be about coverage, not number of properties. Uhooep (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD.

Why is this highly run-of-the-mill business listed here, when it currently fails CORPDEPTH, as noted on the talk Talk:Elegant_Hotels_Group. I have my concern that I came across this while trying to eliminate the creator's account from promo activity at WP:COIN#Polkadot (project). Widefox; talk 11:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs work and expansion, but the cited references (including The Times, the Financial Times, and the London Evening Standard) are sufficient to pass GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, GNG is quite different to CORPDEPTH, do you consider Times, Times is excluded from notability as M&A in WP:CORPDEPTH, similarly Times is excluded per "routine", FT is an interview so non-independent. Widefox; talk 01:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largest independent hotel operator in Barbados, a country with a significant tourism industry, backed up by sufficient sources which to me justify inclusion. Uhooep (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a very simply requirement for meeting the criteria for establishing notability. Reasons such as "largest hotel operator in Barbados" and similar are not sufficient. There must be references and a topic must have two "intellectually independent" reliable references as per GNG and WP:NCORP. A number of the Keep !voters have used reasons such as "substantial coverage", "sufficient to pass GNG" and "backed up by sufficient sources" but none have responded to Widefox (correctly) pointing out that those references fails the criteria for establishing notability.
- Leaving aside the obvious business listings in Bloomberg, financial results, announcements of appointments and announcements from associated companies and bidders (as they fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND we are left with the following references...
- This travelweekly.co.uk reference is based on a company announcement (the headline confirms it was an announcement from Elegant Hotels), is not intellectually independent. Fails WP:ORGIND. This follow-up reference repeats information provided by a company announcement and also fails WP:ORGIND. This third reference is also based on a company announcement, is not intellectually independent and also fails WP:ORGIND.
- this thetimes.co.uk reference relies on unattributed information provided to the newspaper which is merely repeated, fails WP:RS. The reference contains no independent opinion or analysis, fails WP:ORGIND.
- This nationnews.com reference is based on a company announcement and company-provided information. Fails WP:ORGIND. This next reference from the same source is based on a ceremony marking the completion of students who finished their internships with the company. The article relies entirely on interviews with the students and quotations from the human resources director. The reference is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
- Finally, this standard.co.uk reference is also based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND.
Having looked at the references, I agree with nom. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, specifically, no references pass the criteria for establishing notability and they fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:06, 21 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knife Edge (film)[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:NFILM, have not been able to find significant secondary sources, the editor who created it does need seem to have been active after 2007 Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if there isn't much online, a film with a cast like this would have received print reviews. There are a few other online sources to add to what's cited in the article: [41], [42], plus one or two others that I'm not sure would pass WP:RS. --Michig (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michigs argument and sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:58, 16 January 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 Religion in Zambia. If its poorly sources the practise is to redirect but if there is anything sourced that can be merged its an editorial decision. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Zambia[edit]

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

No sourcing found. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claims that there are 5 times as many Hindus in Zambia as the census found are highly suspect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be sourced (which may not be much) to Religion in Zambia. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Religion in Zambia. It's pretty easy to find sources on the number/% of Hindus in Zambia. (e.g. [43][44], [45], [46]), though many of them disagree with the official census, which isn't necessarily surprising without knowing the methodologies of each. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 10:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject discussed in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Patar knight. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Religion in Zambia. I don't see anything worth merging in the article, but a plausible search term. The article itself is deletable per WP:TNT, so a redirect would be cleaner outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 18 January 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. After the relist, it became pretty clear that there is consensus a) that this is a valid notable subject and b) that deletion is not the right way to handle this. Merging/redirecting/expanding can all be discussed on the talk page as needed but AFD is not for that. So Why 12:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain film[edit]

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

Slapdash gathering of random points with no clear focus. Largely redundant to Public domain, Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, and List of films in the public domain in the United States. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - This is content that was merged from Category:Public domain films (now deleted). Per the policy WP:PRESERVE there should be a merge to Public domain film since that article has a "main article" sub-section. However it would be too big since that article is already very long. Public domain film concerns every country in the world, not just the USA, there needs to be a place to put these country-specific issues without creating separate articles for each country (until needed). Film copyright and PD in film is a complex topic with country-specific issues. The coverage currently is US-centric as there is overlap with other US focused articles. -- GreenC 02:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete As the nom says, this is just a bunch of random points about copyright law in general. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's some interesting details about It's a Wonderful Life in The Public Domain. Andrew D. (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument, try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject that has been covered in numerous reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: And saying that there are sources = adding them to the article right? If there are souces, WHERE THE FUCKING FUCK ARE THEY and why are they not in the article? Don't say there are sources unless you can fucking prove it yourself, mmkay? Otherwise, I could say there are sources out there on my own ass, and it could have a fucking article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are in the References section. –dlthewave ☎ 05:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Significant topic, adequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep gives a world view not just the U.S, the references already in the article are adequate Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The legal status of one of the most popular and significant art and entertainment forms of the modern age is notable however you slice it. Updating, cleanup and the possibility of a merger to public domain can be discussed elsewhere; that's not what AfD is for. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominating rationale is not a valid deletion reason, especially since the topic covers more than just US. Rlendog (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate topic. There is nothing wrong with a standalone article for specific types of media that are in the public domain (see also Public domain music). Content and references from articles about copyright protections in jurisdictions outside the U.S. (e.g. Copyright law of the European Union) can be used to expand this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:34, 19 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layzie Bone discography[edit]

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

Seems superfluous, as Layzie Bone has a full discography (with links to all albums). Suggest re-conversion to redirect. - Not well versed in music/discography article conventions, so feel free to tell me otherwise. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not superfluous as has much more detail than the list of albums in the artist article. Given the sizes of the two articles, however, a merge would likely be in order. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only one charting album, separate disco pages usually only get created to display chart information but there is not much to display here. Mattg82 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Improve - The nominator is correct that the article doesn't do much but repeat a list that is already in the artist's article, but since the artist is notable I suggest that his discography be expanded with the types of supporting info seen in other discog articles. A "cleanup-reorganize" tag could be added to the top. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Improve He's part of one of the most successful rap groups in history. I think it needs to be cleaned up and improved. A deletion would be pointless as he is extremely notable. Dam!ta (talk) 23:44, 20 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Farrel[edit]

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

Article currently is a CV cited to primary sources (largely added by the subject himself). There's no evidence at all that any of his books have received significant secondary attention (the most recent three are self-published). Whether or not he'd been elected to a position in a minor UK political party, he'll need to have had significant coverage in reliable seondary sources to meet WP:GNG. In the absence of any compelling claims of notability, time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I created article because the guy has headed many IETF groups and written RFCs. Furthermore, according to Amazon he has authored multiple computer science books. However, for me his non-computer science books were never a criteria of his notability. I do not care if the article is deleted or kept. --- A. L. M. 17:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9 books written, 25 citations, The previous notice mentions "This article needs attention from an expert in Biography/Science and academia" so unless those proposing deletion are just that - I don't see how the deletion can be proposed. I see nothing to suggest those proposing the deletion have the necessary qualifications. Drowz0r (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what expertise, Wikipedia policy or guidance are you using to support your 'keep'? Sionk (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given our expertise seem roughly the same, my keep and your proposed delete seem equally valid. So it is either worth something and we cancel one another out... or neither of us have the necessary expertise and our views are worth equally zero (looking at your profile my qualifications are likely the same as your own, without going into too much detail on your/my degrees etc). Drowz0r (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't particularly agree with the justification provided for the nomination, but I'm not sure I can argue against what is likely to be the outcome. Personally, I think Wikipedia is too keen on just removing BLP articles because a high bar for notability is required. On the other hand, the subject of this nominations has works that are rightfully cited sources for other articles on Wikipedia, and I'd also suggest (but don't know), that the subject is sufficiently notable in his main area of activity. I certainly feel like the nominator should have at least consulted with the Science and Academia workgroup first. Does this project even know the article has been nominated for deletion? Have they actually even been informed the article was in need of attention? Also, Wikipedia's guidelines make little account for semi-academic engineering professions, especially in computing (with the exception of mentioning an IEEE fellowship as a sign of notability), as the specific criteria don't often apply to these disciplines, so that could use improvement. Either way, I think it's a bit disappointing the amount of busybodying this article has received by WP:POLUK.--Topperfalkon (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topperfalkon (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find coverage in a reliable independent source. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. With top citation count on Google scholar over 1000 and a couple other publications over 100 he appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 (but only just, as it's a high-citation field). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 20 January 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) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freak[edit]

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

Nothing but a series of dicdefs with no connection. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freak (disambiguation). Inclusion as an article on the term's sociological significance has not been included, and does not seem notable to be given its own article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Freak (disambiguation) should be moved to Freak. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and trim to reflect the primary historically significant usage in reference to people with unusual physical characteristics. There is a clear primary topic here, even if the article addresses it a bit loosely. bd2412 T 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject that should cover the historically significant usage in reference to people with unusual physical characteristics. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freak is never dicdef otherwise related topics like horror, fear, shock and whatnot we will all delete them as dicdefs. Just it didn't get fine copy editor. But more reason of keeping it is this is (almost) entirely sourced to academic books by renowned academic presses and that's our most trusted sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is nonsensical as there's no dictionary-style material here and, even if there were, it wouldn't be a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk)

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) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Inheritance Cycle characters[edit]

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

Major fancruft, no notability, no sourcing Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - As I stated on its talk page, I believe that List of Inheritance Cycle characters - while in shoddy shape right now - can and should be saved. It is notable in that it describes characters in a highly notable YA book series, some of which have been controversially compared to characters in other media. Such controversies and character descriptions are often too detailed to describe on a book page, and so having this page around allows us to keep that information. I compare this list with List of characters in mythology novels by Rick Riordan, List of The Underland Chronicles characters, and List of Harry Potter characters. The last of these is always my most-cited precedent as it includes paragraphs of completely-unreferenced descriptions of even minor characters (look at Ludo Bagman for an example), and yet it lives. As I asked on the IC list talk page, I ask that we at the very least postpone deletion for a month so that I can make some attempt at making this particular list acceptable. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This can be saved and improved. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve As previously stated, the Inheritance Cycle series is just as notable as other series that have dedicated lists of characters. If there is too much original research or lack of sources, the article should just be cleaned/tagged for cleaning. Nanophosis (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - Keep and improve. The article should be kept and improved to fix any issues with referencing, apparent fancruft, etc. I will personally do this work if given time. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 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. I did briefly consider redirecting to Kalyan Junction railway station, but I think this is a fairly unlikely search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The only independent source in the article is not about this shed, but about an Electro shed established in 1928 (the Diesel shed is established in either 1967 (infobox) or 1987 (body of text). Prod removed without any improvement (which isn't necessary technically, but doesn't explain why the ProD was supposedly invalid and doesn't solve the problems of course). Fram (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kalyan is a major railway hub. We cover its facilities in other pages such as Kalyan#Transport, Kalyan Junction railway station and Loco Shed, Kalyan. This page should be kept for integration and development of this material per our editing policy. Deletion would not be appropriate because it would be disruptive. Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So no evidence that this is in any way a notable shed then? Kalyan#Transport is a two-line section without any information on this or other sheds, just that the station is important: this is not a reason to keep this article. Kalyan Junction railway station is a gem with indispensable information like "Waiting Rooms are available on platform Nos. 4 & 5 of with and without air condition. There is a separate 'ladies-only' waiting room on platform 4. Canteen is available on the long distance trains platform 4&5. snacks corners can be located on the entire length of the platforms." Yep, having more articles like this is what our editing policy proscribes. Loco Shed, Kalyan: should this article exist? Perhaps, but even then there is no reason that if we have one article on a perhaps notable shed, we suddenly have to keep articles on other non notable sheds as well. Nothing in your favourite WP:PRESERVE policy claims that pages should be kept "for integration and development" if the information is on a subject which lacks notability to start with. There is nothing "disruptive" about the deletion of this material, no other article would suddenly become deficient or unintelligible, there would be no gap in the coverage of notable subjects. Please support your "keep" with actually relevant arguments and policies, not the "I can use it for every page I like" PRESERVE shortcut. Fram (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies here are WP:V and WP:PRESERVE and these are adequately satisfied by sources such as this. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That source obviously is not an independent source. Not everything that can be verified to exist (which is not under dispute) should be preserved, other arguments are needed as to why it should be included in enwiki. Fram (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That source is adequate to demonstrate the significance of the place, as noted by Jaywardhan009 below. I do not accepts Fram's view and his bludgeoning is vexatious. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a locomotive shed, it does what it is supposed to do. That's all that source demonstrates. That you find someone pointing out the fallacies and errors in your arguments "vexatious" is your problem, but the best way to decrease your annoyance would be to present better arguments, not make unsubstantiated claims. People get by now that you don't accept my view, but that doesn't change the fact that you haven't provided a single independent reliable source about this shed so far. Fram (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to jump through Fram's hoops especially as his argument is not based upon policy whereas mine is. There are sensible alternatives to deletion and so it is reasonable to prefer them per our editing policy. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PRESERVE is about removing some information in an article or not, it doesn't deal with whether a subject should have a standalone article in the first place. Anyway, in WP:V, the other policy you quoted, we find "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Since this article is not based on such sources, it has no place on enwiki. This is, as you well know, what WP:N is about, but as you somehow need the link to an actual policy and not the probably most widely accepted or applied guideline on enwiki, you now have it straight from your own policy. Further down in WP:V we find "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So my hoops are essentially the hoops you find in basic policies, not something I have invented. Fram (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fram is now resorting to an essay to prop up his argument and that's even weaker than a guideline. I remain content with my policy-based argument. We have a reasonable topic here and we should preserve the information about it as part of our coverage of the Indian railway system. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My quotes come straight from the policy, and include a link to an essay (link already in that policy, not my addition). Apparently only your general pointers to policies are acceptable, but my policy quotes aren't? So no, I'm not "resorting to an essay", I give specific applicable policy quotes, not some vague pointers and claims that this article must be retained because "it as (sic) part of our coverage of the Indian railway system". Nearly every article that gets deleted is "part of coverage" of something, be it some music scene, all staff at a university, all people active in a sport, ... That doesn't stop us deleting such articles of course. This shed has not been shown to be a notable part of the Indian railway system as evidenced by independent sources, not just by your claims. Fram (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am unmoved by Fram's wikilawyering. This is my !vote and Fram should please cease trying to badger me out of it. The topic seems quite respectable and it seems quite reasonable that we should keep it for further work. Deletion is not appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like replies, stop replying, simple. But if you do reply, don't include false claims like "Fram is now resorting to an esay" when I gave you two quotes from a policy you brought up (in general) as supporting keep, when it actually favours deletion of such articles. Fram (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The replies are mainly tiresome for the others who have to wade through this. The essential point of WP:V is that we need reliable sources and we have those. WP:IS and WP:N are essays and guidelines which are inferior to our policies. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is regarding diesel shed which hauls India's fastest train Mumbai CST - Karmali Tejas Express.Plz check Mechanical Department - Kalyan Diesel Shed. This a government website. Year was by mistakenly written. This India's largest diesel loco shed.Jaywardhan009 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2018 IST
- Notability is not inherited. You have to show, from reliable, independent sources, that this shed itself (not the locomotives in it, not the train station, but the shed) has received significant, indepth attention, beyond routine coverage or passing mentions. Fram (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- When there is a government site which is giving you a reliable and independent sources what else you what for Notability. If you what these are more article related to it ‘Super fast’ Tejas Express gets its own special, powerful engine that can power the train at 160 km/hr, Mumbai-Goa Tejas Express gets new diesel engine, becomes faster and safer, Tejas Express gets 3 newly designed locomotive engines, Tejas Express gets exclusive locomotive and This official PDF of Central Railway of India BRIEF HISTORY Jaywardhan009 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2018 IST
  - What we need are articles about the shed. The articles you present are about a train or a locomotive, and mention the shed in passing (in one line or so). Fram (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sir, plz google search it what is Central Railway zone of Indian Railway. If you are saying there is no reliable source then my Government is also not reliable. If you google Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan you will find these articles where this loco shed name in it and most it are recognized newspeper of India and PDF will tell you all history of it. Jaywardhan009 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2018 IST
      - I said that Indian government is not an independent source, not that it isn't a reliable source. A government producing documents about their railways is not an indication of notability. The newspaper sources are not about the shed, they are about locomotives and mention the shed in passing only. Fram (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Sir, do you know about India, only Kaylan railway station there are 246 train. There are two loco shed shed located in Kalyan, one is electric which has 201 and diesel one 67 engine. This two different shed are located 10 Km meter of the station which is suburb Mumbai. According to you Government of India is not an independent source but in India whole rail network is run by Government of India then this make it a independent source and if Government of India is not an independent source where you will find coverage of the Indian railway system please tell me. The link which I send is about train which has got special engine of Diesel Loco Shed, Kalyan which does maintenance and repair work of the engine and this engine is use for this train only that article is also about this loco shed. Jaywardhan009 22:44, 15 January 2018 IST
        Hmm...I'm an Indian and I'm not slightly convinced.Every car-shed/yard/cabins could be always sourced to IR but it hardly means that WP shall have articles on all of them.Enough of this default notability craze.Winged Blades^Godric 17:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kalyan Junction railway station, which can easily contain any info.TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no real claim to notability in this article, and it's not clear that it has any particular association with the passenger station where the coord tag lands. The notion that train sheds/engine houses are intrinsically notable is absurd. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir these are the 19°14'5"N 73°8'14"E coordinate of the google map. If engine the shed are not according to wikipedia policy you can delete all the article related to it also Project India' Railway section. I can improve the article by writing essay on it. Jaywardhan009 22:44, 15 January 2018 IST
Delete Non notable fails WP:GNG as sources are passing mentions. Also the rationale of having an article like this conflicts WP:NOTWEBHOST Hagennos (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hagennos. Violates WP:NOTWEBHOST as it's trivial factoids and routine coverage that kind of verifies existence but does nothing to confer notability. Reyk _YO! 09:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable infrastructure. I reject the argument that because the substantial coverage is from the government it is insufficiently independent. The Library of Congress and National Register of Historic Places are run by the U.S. government and certainly have the ability to confer notability onna subject here. The Indian government documents covering this subject are more than adequate to establish notability. It's also not true that is hasn't received independent coverage.

The design of new commuter passenger train engines and paint jobs done at the facility as well as other maintenance and engineering projects done at this shed are often covered in Newspapers as well as news of the major trains kept there. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Being included in the Library of Congress is not a sign of notability, they include every book, magazine, ... printed in the US and much more beyond. The National Register of Historic Places is not the owner or user of the buildings in the Register, they are an independent "award" (for lack of a better word) and thus they give notability to the places in the register. The Indian Government is the owner/user of this building, not an independent organisation like the NRHP is for the buildings. You may be right that there is independent coverage, but you need to provide some evidence of this. Simply claiming that such coverage exists is not sufficient. Fram (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Kalyan Junction railway station.Per persuasive argument by nominator.I searched Hindi dailies and there are nothing more than scant trivial mentions.And, AD, whilst it's good to see you back with shades of the bygone ARS-days, please stop having the false notion that your argument is policy-based, when almost-often they are to the contrary.Winged Blades^Godric 17:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sensing any notability in this topic other than trivial mentions and railfan content. Ajf773 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latin hip hop[edit]

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

Sources do not verify "latin hip hop" as a genre. WP:SYNTH of ideas not supported by the topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems to me the focus of the article is all wrong – it talks mainly about artists of Hispanic descent making hip hop in America, rather than Latin American artists making hip hop in Spanish or Portuguese, which is what I would think of as Latin hip hop. Certainly South America has any number of artists rapping in Spanish, and many of them are famous and Grammy Award winners (e.g. Calle 13, Choc Quib Town, etc.) but without a specific definition of "Latin hip hop", many of these artists will be classed as reggaeton instead. Richard3120 (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article might need work, but it is the good foundation of a solid article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C. W. Gilmore: WP:UGLY is not a valid argument, try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Latino foundations within of Hip-Hop are well documented in it's history and it's formation into a subsection of Hip-Hop, especially in Latin America are without question. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than your use of the wrong "its", none of this has to do with the article. As I said, it's just a slapdash synthesis of unconnected ideas. Just because there are hip-hop artists who are Latin American does not mean that "Latin hip hop" exists. It's like saying that "African-American country music" is a thing just because Charley Pride and Darius Rucker exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Latino History of Hip-Hop: Part 1 [47], Part 2 [48] for some education [49]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The worst part is that I don't even like Hip-Hop and even I know the value of this article [50][51]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the discussion by C.W. Gilmore above this is a very notable subject covered very substantially in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets GNG per a source review. Perhaps add a copy edit template atop the article with an explanation of how it can be improved, along with further commentary on the talk page, instead of overtly deleting it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: The sources prove that Latinos do hip-hop, not that "latino hip hop" is a genre. That's WP:SYNTH on its face. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More custom source searches below. Here are some additional source examples; more are available in addition to these: [52], [53], [54], [55]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(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 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 SIP Express Router. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSIPS[edit]

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

Chiefly a list of indiscriminate items which has no value for the general people and only interests a group of hardcore fans. As such, the whole page is not encyclopedic. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ~~Note: This cannot qualify for soft deletion as it has been prod/deproded. It can be closed as no consensus if no further comments after 7 more days.~~
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any notability in the sourcing. Also, fwiw, PROD removal does not exempt an article from soft deletion via an AfD per the policy: administrators may soft delete at their discretion per WP:SOFTDELETE, even if it has been deproded. This discretion might be to not delete ~~this time because the deprod was so recent~~, but it would not be outside the policy to soft delete. Hopefully it won't come to that, though. Edit: actually, I think soft deletion would be good here if we don't have more participants. The actual contested PROD was in 2013, not recently, and a how-to guide is not really the type of sourcing we look for. Soft deletion (assuming we don't get more participation) would work because the deprod had been years ago, and a lack of a quorum now after multiple relists would show that over time, the deletion had become non-controversial. Anyway, that is assuming we don't get more comments, which like I said, hopefully we will. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I don't know where I got that idea in my mind. Thanks for the ping and letting me know. I was checking histories and not using soft deletion, ha. I appreciate it. Killiondude (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it makes sense to do it the way you were :). I’d agree that it typically would be a reason to NC close if it were recent, but policy allows a closing admin discretion in these cases. I think an example of where I would soft delete would be a no reference stub from 2005 that was de-proded in 2006 by an IP with no comment and had been relisted twice with no comments: it would be ineligible for PROD because of the 2006 contesting, but if no one in the community objected to its deletion after 3 weeks, it’d make little sense to NC and renom. This isn’t quite at that extreme, but relisted twice with one Delete !vote based on the sourcing and a contested PROD from 5 years ago would in my opinion, be fine to soft delete. Again, hopefully this becomes all academic, but I just didn’t want there to be a NC if there didn’t have to be. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JamesBWatson (talk · contribs), who added the first prod.
Pinging Mark viking (talk · contribs), who wrote on the talk page:
I am going to deprod this article as the second reference, Building Telephony Systems with OpenSIPS 1.6 is an entire book on the subject--a substantial peer reviewed publication by a respected computer book publisher. This is good evidence of notability. A quick look at GScholar shows a number of papers discussing openSIPs. Thus the assertion of lack of notability is not uncontroversial. --Mark viking (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Pinging Pavlor (talk · contribs), who removed the second prod on 1 January 2018 with the note "Procedural deprod - Prod/Deprod already in August 2013, deprod reason on the article talkpage".
Cunard (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Book mentioned above was published by Packt, which is a print on demand publishing company - they will probably publish anything you throw at them. Hard to judge notability then. I was not able to find better sources myself. Pavlor (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SIP Express Router. There are few enough editors in the telecoms space these days that lack of participation does not imply lack of controversy. Warnock's dilemma applies. 4 1/2 years after my deprod above, Packt's reputation isn't what it used to be. The book itself got a second edition in 2016, which wouldn't happen if it was hit-and-run dross. But Pavlor makes a good point--Packt branding doesn't have the reputation of a first-tier publisher. OpenSIPs itself has a yearly conference devoted to it and is mentioned in about 450 GScholar entries. This paper claims (as of 2011) that OpenSIPS was the most popular open source SIP server. Altogether its not enough evidence for stand-alone notability. But the software is worth a mention in the SIP Express Router article. This article covers SER, and further developments OpenSER and Kamailio. OpenSIPS is another further development of OpenSER, so has a natural place in the article. I'd just merge the couple of sentences in the lede of this article as due weight. --Mark viking (talk)

"Lack of controversy?" With all due respect, what are you talking about? The huge table that consistitutes 96.7% of the article (45,052 bytes from the 46,542 bytes total) is a direct violation of WP:NOTDIR, a fundamental policy.

The remaining 3.7% probably does better in Session Initiation Protocol article.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly prefer deletion (this is clearly not notable and there is nothing I can see worth merging), but I'd be fine with a redirect and let people merge as needed from history (and I suspect nothing will be needed, but that's up for a talk page discussion). TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being more clear about the controversy assertion. I was referring to TonyBallioni's assertion above that lack of participation could mean less controversy. Regarding the table, there's no controversy there--it's of undue weight, out of place, and agreed, violates NOTDIR. Whatever is done with the article, the table has got to go :-) Redirecting or merging to Session Initiation Protocol would be fine by me, too. --Mark viking (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge lede sentences to

Session Initiation Protocol per above discussion. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What I wrote in my PROD back in 2013 still applies now: there is no evidence that this subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article gives no independent sources at all (the author of the book referred to is one of the developers of OpenSIPS). Merging the bulk of the content of the article makes no sense, since, as Codename Lisa and Mark viking both say, almost all of it is a totally unsuitable table which does not belong in any article. As for merging the first couple of sentences to SIP Express Router, I agree with TonyBallioni that there is nothing worth merging. However, anyone who thinks that OpenSIPS is worth a brief mention there can easily write one or two short sentences telling the reader what OpenSIPS is, without having to refer to this article. AfDs that are closed as "merge" more often than not result in one of two outcomes: (1) nobody actually does the merge, or (2) it is merged, and then after a while when everyone from the AfD has moved on, someone reverts the redirecting, and restores the article. In either of these cases there was consensus (sometimes unanimous consensus) that the article should not remain, but it does remain. Obviously in the case of an article with significant content worth merging that is just a risk we have to accept, but where there is no significant content to merge, as in this case, it is much better to delete the article and, as I have indicated, anyone can then add a brief mention to the other article if they wish to. That is why I strongly prefer delete to merge for this article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, WP is not a tech manual or directory listing ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to SIP Express Router. According to the OpenSIPS github page, OpenSIPS is a fork of SER. It might make sense to mention the fork there. But, for sure, don't include the whole list of modules. One or two sentences should be sufficient, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Google search indicates there is a strong technical support infrastructure behind this implementation. The organization also holds annual conferences to support the product. Better sourcing would be nice, but this is a back office product, and not sexy. A merge wouldn't work because the SIP article only points to a list of different vendor implementations, and SIP Express Router is a fork. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Oseña-Paez[edit]

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

We have a big issue with this article. While it does appear that she is notable, all of the sources currently in the article were added by paid editor Noraft (AKA I'm Tony Ahn) who heads a PR firm: original creation HERE. Per this discussion, and this interview with Tony Ahn, where he was asked: "What if a client hasn’t had anything written about them?"

His response is harrowing: "This is an issue that isn’t impossible to get around. You have to have press coverage to get on Wikipedia. So I have placed articles in the press on behalf of clients. If you don’t have press, I can get you press – because I work in PR. I can set up an interview with a newspaper, and then write the Wikipedia article. If I have to get you two insertions, then the Wiki article it’s 75,000 Philippine pesos for the whole lot."

This obviously calls into question every single reference added by Tony Ahn (and his username Noraft) as it may have been planted by his PR firm. Given that there are zero other references in the article other than the ones added by Noraft, I think we have no choice but to TNT the article and blacklist these sources from being used for notability should the article be recreated. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fully agree with Insertcleverphrasehere's statements above, every source added by Tony Ahn's PR firm is suspect and should be discounted. This is made pertinent by the fact (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Web_article_detailing_Tony_Ahn's_editing_process) that Ahn often plants sources in local newspapers to establish a basis for writing an article for his firm. Once you remove these sources, there is nothing left to indicate the encyclopedic importance of the article subject, indicating WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR failures.--SamHolt6 (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahn's firm was also keen to point out their creation of this article for the sake of publicity [56].--SamHolt6 (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't add much to the obvious subversion detailed above. This is an inherent issue in lacking disclosure (COI editing, especially PAID). The problem is intrinsic - if an editor misrepresents, then where does it stop? This is similar to the fruit of the poisonous tree argument in WP:BOGOF, but applied not to legal aspects, but to the independence and reliability of the sources presented in bad faith. Widefox; talk 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article on this subject's main tv show Urban Zone is suffering similar issues, and has the same undisclosed COI/PAID editor(s) I'm Tony Ahn. This logically follows, as if there weren't sources for the BLP, there wouldn't have been sources for her tv show. In that respect all arguments above would apply unless proved otherwise, and that articles fate should be included here, or could speedily follow this AfD. Widefox; talk 12:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think that the article on her TV show doesn't meet the notability guidelines completely independently of the tainted sources. The tainted sources just make it more obvious. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The process involved here shows why we need to be vigilant against the view "it is mentioned in a paper, that shows notability." WIkipedia is not supposed to be gamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A case reflecting one of WP's several Achilles' heels that needs to be remedied. Agricola44 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as promotional editing which take precedence over considerations of notability .

Although this editor appears to be responsible for having himself arranged for the sources present, this apples not uniquely to this article: every interview with any performer or business figure in any newspaper or magazine was almost certainly placed by a paid press agent, and none of them can ever be accepted for notability, nor are they a RS except to the extent that the subject's own statements are for routine facts, and their own view of what to say for their motivations--assuming that even these are their own view and not what their PR consultant told them to say. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam and echoing DGG's point above, which should be written into WP:RS as a reminder to those who add these sources in good faith. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with TNT - Actually looking around, it seems like she's been covered by some sources, though considering the history of the article, it's possible that at least some of those coverage were intended for the creation of this article. As such, it's probably best to start over in this case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is wretched, not even up to the lower standard Tony Ahn was trying to get accepted in September 2016 (here). The content of the page is fluffery upon flattery, nothing encyclopedic about it. – Athaenara ✉ 15:38, 20 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Asajile Mwambulukutu[edit]

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

No notability asserted, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What does "no sourcing found" even mean when the article already has sources, and more can be easily found? Υπογράφω (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin, and articles should not just be listings of positions held.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TPH you need to put a little more effort into your WP:BEFOREs. According to this source he at one point served as the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, which, as a national office, fulfills WP:NPOL. Furthermore, this states he was a member of Parliament. Furthermore, this BBC article indicates that he held a position analogous to Ambassador to South Africa. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deputy minister is a national office and termed "state minister" in many African countries. It meets WP:NPOL. High commissioner is the same as Ambassador in full sense. It is only used among Commonwealth nations. It meets WP:NPOL too. So the word "analogous" is not even needed here. Position that is "analogous" to Ambassador is called Chargé d'affaires; because the word "analogous" strips sense of fullness. A notable international diplomat. However, this nomination is not surprising if one considers nominations like this where entire country education is nominated for deletion by the same person.–Ammarpad (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, MP passes WP:NPOL easily. --Soman (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, no Snow Keep actually. Come on TenPoundHammer do the job properly, or don't do it at all, my friend. So, Tanzania's Ambassador to South Africa does not meet WP:NBIO? Just look at WP:NPOL - he clearly does. You first PROD-ed the article, stating "no sources", then you must have AFDed it still without checking the sources that were already there. Basic advice: a) look at the article (there were sources when you PRODed it); b) look on Google. c) read WP:BEFORE. Seriously, we're seeing some very poor AfDs and PRODs coming out from underneath that hammer of yours recently. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:32, 21 January 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 mentioned in the discussion, notability requires that sources are about you, not by you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Laurence Berkowitz[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have the necessary coverage in secondary sources to meet WP:NPEOPLE. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. primarily advertising, and deceptive advertising at that. Most papers minor. Actually reading the references, he is one of the independent developers of the "spreader flap technique" , a detail of technique. He is not the inventor of the use of tools; like all contemporary plastic surgeons, he uses them. We have rid WP of most of the advertising for plastic surgeons, we should not permit it to return. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see an assertion of notability or substantial coverage in reliable sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* His papers are not advertising they are peer to peer. You can search his papers on research gate. He is highly recognized and notable in his field and in the US. Romeo2259 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have some courses http://www.psenetwork.org/Search/Results.aspx?q=r.+laurence+berkowitz

He wrote in books which are already published and it's mentioned in the article already. Please have a deep look. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeo2259 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added references to books, Journals that he wrote. He is the author of many books (Chapters) and you can verify that. There are more books I'll add them as well. Please review this before taking any actions or at least relist, so I can add more, thanks.Romeo2259 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo2259, demonstrating notability as that term is used on Wikipedia requires sources about the subject, not by them. Please see Wikipedia:Notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 22 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert I. Blum[edit]

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

CEO of smallish (450 million USD marketcap) company. Lack of in-depth WP:SIGCOV. Mainly mentioned in conjunction with company announcement. Sourcing in article is a few interviews (do not establish notability), a Bloomberg profile (exists for any named executive in the states), profiles in organizations (e.g. [57] JFCS), a profile in the Harvard alumni magazine. This source - coverage in lifescienceleader is perhaps better, though this is a trade journal. Most of what's out there in a BEFORE (which isn't that much - this is a small company) - is in conjunction with company announcements (i.e. a quote from the CEO) Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the company is not large enough to gaurantee that its president is default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is CEO and President of the company. Merge per wp:preserve FloridaArmy (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable CEO; the company is not large enough to confer presumed notability on its chief executive. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 20 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Urbelis[edit]

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

For a "media personality", the subject has received very little coverage in independent reliable sources. I could not find anything better than the references already present in the article -- all of which are to sources affiliated with the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO.

Created by an SPA, this looks very much like an attempt at promotion Rentier (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to show Urbelis is indepdently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo 'cruft on a nn person. Non-notable as either a "writer, attorney, radio and media personality" or a "self-described hacker". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chisato Morishita[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article cites no sources, only providing external links to online directories and the subject's blog. None are suitable for notability. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Does not meet WP:NACTOR as roles are all minor. Does not meet the general WP:ENT either. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

Comment: She has quite an article on Japanese Wikipedia at ja:森下千里 and a search on her name returns an abundance of hits. Does nom speak/read Japanese? Which ATD solutions were sought here? Sam Sailor 00:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only see a link to wikia on her article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ja.wiki article is equally inconvincing for notability; there's no case for WP:NACTOR and lacks WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tommi Sirkiä[edit]

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

Non notable individual. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Manelolo (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anachronist, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Athen lyre[edit]

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

I did a search and the best I could find was this and this, which isn't much good for notability, though does call him an "award winning artist". It seems he won a 'Starqt' award in 2015, which isn't enough for notability. Doesn't seem like enough to me to meet notability (either GNG or WP:NMUSICBIO). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Reddogsix nominated for speedy delete as an edit conflict with this submission. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I am in agreement with the Submission declined statements on Draft:Athen Lyre. reddogsix (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it being speedy deleted, but will keep this AfD open in the event that the CSD is declined. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:08, 15 January 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 The Baby-Sitters Club (TV series). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avriel Hillman[edit]

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

She had a role in only one notable production. This is below the multiple significant roles in notable productions guideline for entertainer notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Fails WP:CREATIVE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Baby-Sitters Club (TV series) where she has a significant role. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced fanpage. Agricola44 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 - article was created by a sockpuppet of a site-banned user, the only substantial edits by other users have been filling in reference templates. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pawan Hans Dauphin 2 crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, fails the criteria of WP:AIRCRASH. A non-notable crash. No notable persons, damage or effects. Wikipedia is NOT a repository of articles on every bump and scrape, if for no other reason than the servers have a finite capacity Petebutt (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails single event, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wonder, why do we have so many of these types of news pieces? If this had any inkling of significance, it would belong on a list. As it stands, however, this will be nothing more than a memorial page to an unfortunate, but unnotable, incident.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:01, 15 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quote/commentary[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote ones own work. Lacks coverage outside of the works of terms coiner Stevan Harnad. Outside sources mention that Harnard uses it but beyond that mention those sources do not use the term. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:27, 15 January 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 Stevan Harnad. (non-admin closure) !dave 12:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Student skywriting[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote ones own work. Lacks coverage outside of the works of terms coiner Stevan Harnad. Like Scholarly skywriting (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholarly skywriting) but without the other mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stevan Harnad, as for Scholarly skywriting (stretching it a bit if lacking in third-party mentions). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:53, 18 January 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 Stevan Harnad. (non-admin closure) !dave 12:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly skywriting[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a venue to promote ones own work. Lacks coverage outside of the works of terms coiner Stevan Harnad. Outside sources mention that Harnard uses it but beyond that mention those sources do not use the term. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stevan Harnad. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stevan Harnad. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single bow[edit]

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

I can find no real evidence for this. Book hits in particular seem to refer to something else having to do with convertible tops early on, or with almost any random thing juxtaposing "single", "bow", and "car". Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm only getting a few hits on boat hull design, and even those seem ad hoc. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 18 January 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. Leaning to keep, but there is a fair amount of dissent from the subjective question of whether this structure is notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Avenue Bridge[edit]

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

This is pedestrian bridge over a highway. There is nothing in the article that establishes notability. Billhpike (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~tentatively~~. Has wp:BEFORE been performed? No assertion in the nomination. It's not just any ordinary pedestrian bridge, it is high design, and it was renamed, generating more coverage presumably. The article already has several sources, including Structurae database entry in external links. --Doncram (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't searched yet for available online sources, but the alternative name should be checked, too:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL should be checked also. --Doncram (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First hit that I checked is this Gizmodo article on 15 of the world's best urban bike infrastructures, which lists it first with classy photo. This is notable. --Doncram (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gizmoda article has a total of 18 words about this bridge. Are there any sources that give significant coverage as required by WP:GNG? Billhpike (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nature of that article, with its featured photo of the bridge, is indeed significant coverage. Is there more? Sure, how about this Mercury News article "Roadshow: New bicycle bridge over I-280 is striking span". Again it seems to me that wp:BEFORE was not performed. --Doncram (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At best, all coverage in the Mercury-News amounts to a single source for the purpose of WP:GNG Billhpike (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were four to six sources in the article that were fine at the time of the nomination, none of which were the San Jose Mercury News. Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of nomination, the sources consisted of ENR article (not independent), a city of Cupertino webpage (not independent), a 16 word blog post, a dead link to a picture of plaque on the Cupertino website, a Structurae entry (trivial coverage and self-published), and a dead link to a webcam feed. None of the sourcres satisfy WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE turned up a few Mercury-News articles, which together count as a single source per WP:GNG. Billhpike (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is helpful, thank you.

The main point I see in reply is that while GNG requires "sources", where sources means more than one source, the contributions of significant coverage can come mostly from one WP:RS source, such as the regional newspaper the San Jose Mercury News. Unscintillating (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a $14.8 million [58] 500 ft bridge. It is a big deal, and covered in numerous articles. There is a reason why someone chose to create a Wikipedia article on this topic, as opposed to the absence of articles on many non-descript or ugly concrete beam pedestrian bridges. Perhaps the deletion nominator should consider, if there's a Wikipedia article, maybe indeed there's a reason for it. --Doncram (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The price tag doesn't establish notability. Even worse, are you really going to argue that because someone wrote an article, it must be notable. That kind of circular logic makes no sense at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I'm an Inclusionist and I like the way it looks. I don't remember why I originally created this article. - Denimadept (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If Mary Street is notable, then this one is too: [59]. It got a lot of press, too. Rhadow (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That doesn't seem like a reason. Sure, that other pedestrian bridge may indeed be notable. Offhand the one source doesn't inspire me to create an article about it, unlike the Mary Avenue Bridge one, which is striking on a world-wide level, but you're right that if wp:GNG is met then it is notable too. --Doncram (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been mentioned in Engineering News Record (ENR), which makes it notable. Article has verifiable sources too. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ENR article was written by the firm that managed the construction of the bridge and thus does not serve establish notability. Billhpike (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that ENR is not a WP:RS? Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some articles in ENR are reliable sources, but the article ~~you~~ Morphenniel linked to is not sufficiently independent from the construction company to satisfy WP:GNG. 02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Edited to correct Morphenniel posted ENR article Billhpike (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask a question here about an article I linked to. Publishers don't lose their independence just because they choose articles written by subject matter experts. Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the bridge won a Helen Putnam Award of Excellence - here is the listing, and here is an indepth article on the bridge, this article talks of it winning "a gold award for engineering excellence from the American Council of Engineering Companies of New York." (have been unable to confirm this on the ACEC site). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment

"Roadshow: New bicycle bridge over I-280 is striking span". San Jose Mercury News. August 30, 2009. Retrieved 2018-01-15. "It's a striking, iconic image that will become a landmark for Cupertino and Silicon Valley," said John Brazil, head of the bicycle and pedestrian... The cost was high. At $15 million, it's believed to be the most expensive span of its type in the South Bay.
Modern Steel Construction. American Institute of Steel Construction. 2008. Retrieved 2018-01-15. The Mary Avenue Bridge was designed to behave elastically under the design-level seismic event, and the unique cross section proved to have excellent wind stability, far exceeding design requirements.
Attila Nagy (May 19, 2014). "15 of world's best urban bike infrastructures". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2018-01-15. here is a selection of state-of-the-art bike infrastructures, which pave the way for a better biking world...The Don Burnett bicycle pedestrian bridge (also known as Mary Avenue Bridge) in Cupertino, California, opened in 2009.

(edit conflict) Keep Neither GNG nor WP:NOT limit coverage of pedestrian bridges. As per GNG, sources establish notability, whether or not they are in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Western City article was written by a city employee and does not serve to establish notability. Billhpike (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City employees serve the public. Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and i know commercial business sites aren't useable for notability but this is interesting (hang on coola, another no, no:)) even levis strauss talks about it here so its well known. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Looks like a really nice bridge, but I don't see anything notable about it, just some local press coverage. The Helen Putnam award doesn't seem to be particularly notable and being that the source says 2019 Award Winning Entries, I think those are actually nominations (either that or someone has a flux capacitor). The assumptions that the nominator acted in WP:BADFAITH are uncalled for.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The exclusion of sourcing from "local press coverage" in this !vote is disputed, as no guideline basis for doing so is provided. Unscintillating (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea, that there exist "assumptions" of "BADFAITH" in this AfD, diff, appears only in this !vote. To say that such assumptions "are uncalled for" is therefore knocking down a straw man. Unscintillating (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote bolds Delete without stating an opinion or citing a guideline, although it uses the word "notable".

From WP:ATA:

=== Just pointing at a policy or guideline ===

Shortcuts

...merely citing a policy or guideline...does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand...

...deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus...

Unscintillating (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above is blatant WP:WIKILAWYERING and should be ignored as it adds nothing of value to the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Wikilawyering, "The word 'Wikilawyering' typically has negative connotations...those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL)." Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly backed up by your constant inappropriate "!vote is disputed" comments in countless AfDs.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NPA link states that one of the examples of a personal attack is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." So first of all, where are the diffs for these "constant" and "countless AfDs", and next, how is the statement "inappropriate"? Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you here. If you feel its a personal attack, take it to the proper venue. There is also no reason for me to show you diffs of your own editing, you know what you wrote.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then do you agree that the count of "constant" and "countless AfDs" is two? Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating:We will NOT be discussing this here anymore! Please go to your thread at WP:ANI if you want to discuss.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To meet the demands of Unscintillating (because that is the ultimate goal of AfD), the article fails WP:GNG because independent in-depth coverage is lacking.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while it is true that GNG does not depend on sources currently included in the article, searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary sources to show notability. When editors make this statement, without including those sources, their !votes become irrelevant. Even local coverage is scanty. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content of this article can likely be merged into Interstate 280. Billhpike (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources noted in discussion establish the bridge as notable per our guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough! Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

California Metropolitan Transportation Commission (2001). Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. Retrieved 2018-01-16. Mary Avenue bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing at I-280 $3.7 Feasibility study is under way
Matthew Wilson (July 1, 2010). "The man behind some of Cupertino's largest landmarks is leaving". Retrieved 2018-01-16. April 30, 2009, when the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge opened to the public...$14.8 million bridge project...The bridge was slated to be a standard concrete structure, but that proved to almost double its estimated construction cost...ultimately a steel bridge was built.

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

Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to meet the notability criteria and the article is otherwise OKish. I'm bothered about the thought that local sources are to be disregarded. Is this somewhere in the guidelines or is it merely someone's point of view? If there is a suitable pointer to the guidance I'll certainly reconsider. Thincat (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources provided by Okish indicate notability. Newsflash: Pedestrian bridges over highways can be notable. --Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep Not too convinced but how's the prospects of a merge?Winged Blades^Godric 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG. Well within the parameters of our expansive transportation-related coverage (train stations, anyone?). Carrite (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry guys, but I'm just not seeing it. It's a minor route, it's a very typical design for modern wide-span footbridges. If it's a 'landmark', then maybe, but that needs sources on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to sourcing, this bridge is the only cable stayed bridge over a highway in California, which makes it notable architecturally. Not only that, its success using steel instead of concrete has led to at least one other California city (San Jose) referencing it in its own bridge proposal [[60]], so there's lasting notability, which meets WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I added a couple of sources, explaining the name change and the architectural notability. Info about the bridge could certainly be added to Interstate 280 (California)#Route description, but not as a replacement for this article, because there wouldn't be an easy way for the info to be found over there. If the keep momentum continues and this is closed as keep, the article needs to be moved to its new name. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:45, 23 January 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 Teofilo Camomot. Merging permitted to any sourced content. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Domus Teofilo[edit]

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

It is unclear what exactly this is, but presumably a crypt of an archbishop. No indication of independent notability per WP:GNG; the gravesite can be covered in the article about the bishop, Teofilo Camomot. Contested PROD. Sandstein 08:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- I am also not sure what it is about, but I do not think we need two articles, Teofilo Camomot and this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dial911 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, the Domus Teofilo is also called the House of Teofilo museum, there is a shrine inside it, and in that shrine is a image of Teofilo Camomot. Teofilo is an important archbishop that may be made a saint. The tomb itself was nearby, and Teofilo will be reburied somewhere else after his remains have been displayed in the museum. The museum contains other relics as well. Most of this information is from this source. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable museum and shrine. Distinct from the religious figure entombed there at the moment. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teofilo Camomot; not independently notable. Per one usable source listed in the article [61], Domus is the museum dedicated to the life of the subject:

The remains were then placed at the center of the chapel inside the museum, which houses his personal belongings and writings, for public viewing until Thursday afternoon. These were interred shortly after.

Since the museum addresses the life of the subject, it's appropriate to include it in the article on the subject. There's no need for two separate articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Teofilo Camomot, per the arguments above. Limited sourcing also suggests a standalone article isn't warranted. Not sure what to do with that massive infobox, though. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struan Douglas[edit]

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

Non notable amateur rugby league player. Scotland was not granted full international status until 1996, so his appearances in unofficial friendlies fail WP:RLN. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a valiant effort at throwing stuff at the wall, but nothing sticks.--Rpclod (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the first Scotland Rugby League internationals were in 1995, not 1996 as stated above, so his two caps could be official - it looks like Scotland were at the 1995 Rugby League Emerging Nations Tournament. That said I am doubtful if being capped by an emerging nation is enough to meet notability criteria and the article as it stands does not really have much useful to say. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland did play several games in 1995, but they weren't "full internationals", so the team mainly consisted of amateur players and students. In any case, I agree that playing in an Emerging Nations tournament isn't sufficient to pass RLN. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - two cap international.Fleets (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dial911 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a majority opinion for a rename but several arguments about what to rename the article to, so this should be properly listed and discussed at WP:RM. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gujjula Ravindra Reddy[edit]

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

Nothing in here shows notability. No references Hagennos (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to 'Ravindra Gujjula'. A bit of Googling found this, archived from the Sunday Times of India: "He is Germany's first non-white mayor". A bit more googling finds lots more coverage of him under this name, which I'd say meets the WP:GNG. I'd guess his middle name is Reddy and the page name is a mistake meant as "Gujjula, Ravindra Reddy". I'd be happy to make the move and start folding the sources in, but perhaps best to wait for the AfD to finish before moving the article? Mortee (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update he was Mayor of German City Altlandsberg with Indian roots and also Member of state parliament. Page is created in 2008 and to delete it now is not a motivating way for the Indian community in Germany. GoPro (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WPs notability criteria are very clear. Article should pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for notability. As you mentioned in the above comment, if he was a member of state parliament there should be some reference to it in govt documents which should establish notability. Hagennos (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move Member of the Brandenburg Parliament, passing WP:NPOL. Move per User:Mortee. --Enos733 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, but rename how? It’s clear that he is notable, but it’s not at all clear what his name is. The one reference that was added gives his name as Ravindra Gujjula, but then refers to him as “Mr. Ravindra” and “Dr. Ravindra”. It also says his father’s name was Yalamanda Reddy. I suggest this discussion be relisted to allow more time to get definitive information about his name. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to relisting but I still say Ravindra Gujjula. The 8 sources I gave in my !vote above all use that name (and a "Gujjula Jr" in the fist one, which is the one that was added to the article). I'd read "Mr. Ravindra" and "Dr. Ravindra" a lot like "Dr. Phil" – a combination of respect (title) and warmth (first name) – and I think the father's middle name was Reddy: "his parents Yalamanda Reddy... and Sarala Devi", i.e. Yalamanda Reddy Gujjula and Sarala Devi Gujjula. Mortee (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dial911 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, state legislator easily passes WP:NPOL. Not sure what is the problem with the naming, but seems better to move to the naming used in German politics. Do note that South Indian naming conventions are different from European naming conventions. "Gujjula" is the name of a location, "Ravindra" the proper individual name, "Reddy" a caste name. It appears he used "Gujjula" akin to a family name in Germany. --Soman (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan's Garden[edit]

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

This article has no sources to suggest why the garden meets Wikipedia:Notability. It appears to be in Wikipedia as a memorial to a family loved one. No significant content has been added since 2004. User:HopsonRoad 01:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This backyard garden has no evidence of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's publicly accessible, so more than a backyard garden, but still no more notable than any of hundreds of similar municipal garden spots around the country. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:GEO, have been unable to find sources, only some personal recommendations, looking on gmaps there doesn't appear to be signage on the street, also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is unobtrusive signage visible in Streetview (one click west of the map marker), but I agree with all your other points. --Ken Gallager (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh, you mean that tiny mostly illegible wooden sign near the telegraphy pole?, thanks:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 17 January 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. The automatic headcount reveals 45 "keep" and 25 "delete" opinions. As concerns the arguments advanced, the "keep" side argues that the topic has received ample coverage in reliable sources, while the "delete" side considers the article to be non-neutral, original research by synthesis and/or a POV fork. These are all, in principle, valid arguments, and the degree to which one agrees with them is within the range of legitimate disagreement in applying editorial judgment. There are a number of opinions on both sides which aren't much more than votes, though, and at least two "delete" opinions that must be discounted because they make a political argument by describing the article as "insane liberal bias" or a "disgusting partisan attack", rather than making an argument based on Wikipedia's rules.

A deletion would require a consensus to do so, based on arguments founded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The above makes it apparent that a consensus for deletion isn't a possible result of this discussion. The question is therefore whether this is a "no consensus, kept by default" or a "consensus to keep" outcome. The effects are the same, but we still need to call it one thing or the other. In our practice, a 2:1 majority, which this comes close to, is often approximated to consensus. In my view, we are closer to a consensus to keep here than to no consensus: Many of the arguments advanced for deletion refer to supposed defects that can in principle be addressed by editing, such as non-neutrality or original research, rather than arguments that fundamentally call into question whether we should have an article on this topic at all (as would be the case if, e.g., the topic were found to be non-notable or unverifiable). For these reasons, I think it is appropriate to give the "delete" arguments slightly less weight and therefore to arrive at a consensus to keep. Sandstein 13:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump racial views[edit]

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Note: article was moved to Racial views of Donald Trump 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The nature of the article is incredibly biased and non-neutral, lacks encyclopedic tone, lacks encyclopedic value, basically an "article" full of trivia, pretty close to being a WP:QUOTEFARM, and seems to violate BLP standards "bigly" (at least to me). I'm neutral politically and actually lean left, but I cannot believe this even exists as an article. Or anyone thought it was a good idea to begin with. Or that anyone thinks it's encyclopedic in any way. shape. or form.

An example of the kind of POV and unencyclopedic content this article invites (because it's political, because it's "Racism!", because it's Trump - the terror trifecta that just begs controversy, POV, and bias in content and tone): [62]. If this article stands, it's only going to get worse in the way of blatant POV content without encyclopedic tone or value. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not incredibly biased, but even it were, that's not a valid reason for deletion. The content is extremely well sourced and has been been covered for 45 years. There was a discussion at talk:Donald Trump#Racial views about the need to create this article and the support was overwhelming. It is not full of trivia, nor does it violate WP:BLP. If that argument is to be considered, one would expect it to be accompanied by some sort of evidence of how it violates WP:BLP.- MrX 00:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll tellya what's a shithole; this nomination, a big cuppa of "I don't like it". The current president of the United States has made numerous statements that have been construed as racist by numerous reliable sources. The depth and breath of coverage regarding this man's racist statements spanning 4+ decades is staggering, with the latest comments regarding Haiti and such receiving international condemnation. This is a notable topic that would overwhelm the main biographical article, so a separate article is appropriate. TheValeyard (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no feelings of personal dislike for the article, I believe it's inappropriate by encyclopedic and Wikipedia standards. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic and WP:POVFORK. It's pretty much just a collection of quotes from random pundits who call Trump racist over (insert Trump controversy here). Trump's most recent remarks about Haiti and African countries (apparently the main reason this article was created) should be merged into Immigration policy of Donald Trump. ^Falling_Gravity 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article has a lot of prose and relatively few quotes. Most of the quotes are from Trump himself. The largest section in the article are the Central Park jogger case which provides solid background for why his actions were criticized as racially-motivated. There is a section about Trump being sued by the DOJ for housing discrimination against black people. There's a section on polling. This is a comprehensive subject with a scope beyond any existing subject except perhaps Donald Trump which is already too bloated with real estate deals and Apprentice tirvia to contain the full breadth and depth of Trump's racially-provocative remarks and actions that are perceived as racially-motivated.- MrX 03:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Park jogger case already has its own article where his actions are described in detail. The only inclusion criteria for this article appears to be if you get some pundit to call him racist, not that the incident actually gives us insight into his "racial views". ^Falling_Gravity 06:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure how it is a POVFORK when the lead material is essentially in Donald Trump - what POV is it forking off of. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a collection of incidents meant to prove a certain POV: that Trump is racist. ^Falling_Gravity 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. It's an article about his racial views, which discuss some examples ("incidents") in a broader context. What is it suppose to do? Talk about his racial views without actually referring to his words or actions? What kind of a silly suggestion is that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...Volunteer Marek Do we have an article on any other president's racial views? How about President Obama's? I see a Politico article about them, and there are countless others. I'm looking for a place to gage the racism claims since they're obviously politically motivated rhetoric. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm I'm sure you can easily satisfy your curiosity on your own. Both your question and the assumption behind it (that such an article is equivalent) are made in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why you don't read this article and stop casting aspersions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support looking into making this an article dedicated to Trump's recent comments and the various reactions, maybe titled "Shitholegate" as some have suggested. ^Falling_Gravity 17:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be merged into immigration policy, because the history of racism in his apartment rental business has nothing to do with immigration policy. Also, his lies about Barack Obama's place of birth were racial incitement and had nothing to do with any possible changes to U.S. immigration policy. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: That's why I was talking about merging just the section covering Trump's recent remarks. The topics you mention are already covered extensively in Business career of Donald Trump and Donald Trump #Political activities up to 2015. Nothing would be lost if this article was then deleted, and all the opinion articles currently used can be moved to related articles. ^Falling_Gravity 20:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 02:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic NPOV violation. KMF (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask how exactly is it a POV violation? In answering, please refer to specific article content that violates specific policies outlined in WP:NPOV.- MrX

(Also "it's a POV violation" is not valid reason for deletion. Not that it is. See WP:AADD).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is probably the most widely covered and important subject related to his election campaign, his personal views and his actual policies. Consider the number of other WP pages on various events that should be linked to this page or vice versa. No, the page is not hopelessly biased. It simply covers a highly important and controversial subject. It can not be merged to Immigration policy of Donald Trump because many issue on the page are not about immigration (only some are). It should not be merged to Political positions of Donald Trump because personal views and political positions by the person are frequently not the same. The latter are results of compromise with other members of the same Party, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the breadth and depth of coverage (mostly 2016-2018) is more than enough for notability. starship.paint ~ KO 02:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that notability isn't even part of the nomination? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote lacks encyclopedic value, basically an "article" full of trivia. I would think notability is the opposite of that. starship.paint ~ KO 03:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The man has now directly denied being a racist. Increasing the notability of this topic by addressing it. starship.paint ~ KO 03:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a Wikipedia litmus test and a general guideline, not the be-all-end-all for encyclopedic worth. That said, "coverage" doesn't necessarily equate notability (your litmus test). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, wait a minute. If "notability isn't even part of the nomination?", WHAT exactly is the basis for the nomination? (And don't say "it's not encyclopedic", that's circular). Here, per policy, are the reasons for deletion. Which one of them is suppose to apply? It's not a copyvio, it's not a vandalism, it's not a template, category or an image, it's not an advertisement. The ONLY possible criteria for deletion which COULD (but does not, as you admit yourself) apply is notability. And it's notable. So what IS the reason for the nomination? WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* It isn't about what it's "not", it's about what it is - it IS an attack page to discredit Trump. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The allegations of racism are unproven, mostly political banter by the opposition, unfounded opinions are what comprise the bulk of the published news sources, probably for the purpose of bait & click revenue; all of which have been denied and successfully disproven. Oh, and there is also no proof of Russian collusion, his handshakes are normal for an assertive businessman, and he is in excellent health, mental and otherwise. His hairstyle is wierd, and anyone who has taken a course in marketing/business knows the power of repetition. What WP needs are well-written, well-sourced informative encyclopedic articles, not political attack pages supported primarily by the opinions of political opponents. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per FallingGravity. Include comments about race and immigration in Immigration policy of Donald Trump or Political positions of Donald Trump. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Housing discrimination, birtherism, and full page ads calling for black teenagers to be executed do not fit into immigration. Sorry, but this article is not only about Trump's racist comments.- MrX 03:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birtherism is covered in Donald Trump and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Donald Trump. Housing discrimination is covered in Business career of Donald Trump. Full page ads is covered in Central Park jogger case (which this article copies generously). ^Falling_Gravity 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, even if that was done (it shouldn't) there'd still be plenty left for a full fledged, notable topic, article, so this isn't really an argument for deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Talk:Donald Trump#Racial views -- an appropriate WP:SPINOUT. Meets notability guidelines for stand-alone articles, with WP:SIGCOV covering the subject. Sources have been widely reporting on Mr Trump's racial views, so there's no BLP violation here. Nor is this content undue, given the extensive coverage over time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous RS have commented on his history with racially-charged etc remarks and have connected these incidents into a pattern - and thus it is encyclopedic topic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is incredibly biased. Just because almost everyone (including republicans like Paul Ryan) have problems with his statements, and so it is generally negative against trump, doesn't mean it is biased. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the amount of sources on the topic out there is immense. The topic is encyclopedic and helluva more notable than probably a million or two Wikipedia articles. The delete votes appear to be motivated by WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the kind of content "this invites" - that definitely shouldn't be there - and indeed it isn't there in the article nor will it ever be. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is possible that this may be a valid topic in the future, at present we lack secondary sources that tie all these incidents together. Hence it fails notability, and instead is synthesis that connects incidents that Wikipedia editors have deemed relevant in order to prove a thesis, that Trump is a racist. Even if secondary sources could be found, it would be better to blow it up and start again, because it is easier to write a proper article than to correct a hopelessly flawed one. TFD (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, if anything there is an over abundance of secondary sources that do this? [63]. And there's nothing "hopelessly flawed" about this one either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Vox^[3] and NYT's Kristoff^[4] Avisnacks (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on NBC's Duster^[5], Rolling Stone's Berney (2017)^[6] and Fortune's D'Antonio (2016).^[7] starship.paint ~ KO 10:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces did you forget WP:BEFORE? Literally the first four references of the article tie these "incident" together. Now that it has been pointed out that your argument is completely fallacious, will you be changing your comment to keep?- MrX 15:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are opinion pieces and hence fail reliability. Furthermore you don't have any sources that establish the weight of these opinions. In a similar vein there have been a number of commentators who have called Trump a fascist, but the History Channel contacted some of the top fascism experts to weigh in on the topic. Obviously an article based on what experts say would read differently from one based on what his detractors say. And it's the same here. TFD (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who would you say are the experts that are suppose to "weigh in" on this topic? This is just an excuse to dismiss reliable sources. Lots and lots of reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that such opinions are from RS is challenged and the challenge is supported by WP:NEWSORG. WP:BLP is also a consideration as are the associated 3 core content policies which are inseparable: NPOV, V and NOR. Of course, NPOV is the dominant policy in this case when speaking to the reliability of opinions published by biased news sources. Any news source that espouses a person is racist based on nothing more than journalistic and non-expert opinions, not to mention the strong possibility such opinions are tainted by political biases, the proper action to take would be to avoid them per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very term "race" is contested so much, and by some rejected as meaningless, that unless Trump were to write a coherent statement in which he explained what he thought of the term, we would be always hopelessly stuck in following heavily POV-pushing sources that at times speak across each other by using the same term for very different things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, you did it: "The very term "race" is contested so much, and by some rejected as meaningless..." is the most hilarious statement of the day. Yes race as a biological construct is contested by many, esp. by many on the left, who argue that it is biologically meaningless. But sociologically it is not, and denying it is silly. That Trump doesn't understand the first thing about race in any kind of way doesn't mean he doesn't held well-publicized views on race; after all, he had no problem spotting them: "there's my African-American!" One might likewise argue that "religion" is a malleable term and regarded by many as meaningless (in a conceptual, intellectual sense), yet Religious views of Adolf Hitler exists here on Wikipedia, as do article on the religious views of many other celebs. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "POV sources". There are reliable sources and not reliable sources. If a subject is covered widely in reliable sources then it is notable. The fact that YOUJUSTDONTLIKE what reliable sources write is not a valid reason for deletion. Or much of anything on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is such a thing as POV sources, see WP:BIASED. ^Falling_Gravity 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the very link that you provide says that NPOV and "bias" are two different things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is entirely contrary to WP:V and WP:OR. "Race (and its derivatives) is largely a social construct, but it has a commonly-understood meaning.- MrX 15:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nomination statement accurately describes the mixture of thoughts I had when stumbling upon the article shortly after its creation. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the nominating statement is a combination of WP:IDLI and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Can you elaborate to explain how this article doesn't meet our inclusion criteria? - MrX 17:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your questioning yet cordial reply. I've read the nom a few times now. It (the nom statement) seems to point toward valid (policy-wise) deletion arguments. The "lacks encyclopedic value" struck home the most. I'm not sure this is worth it's own article. If Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we should be able to refrain from reporting on every facet of a person's life. Most of this article can be summed up in Donald Trump. After reading what Rusf10 write below, I can also see how the title/topic of the article is illogical. Killiondude (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that while stumbling you didn't happen upon a valid reason for deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a fun reply you gave! Killiondude (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than enough sources discuss Trump and racism. This goes back to his racist property management issues years ago. POVFORK is a hilarious argument though, if only because it depends on the premise that people want to make an article that doesn't represent the consensus view about the subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is highly notable and there are dozens of reportable instances of Donald Trump exuding racism. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 08:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because racism is so taboo, those who are opposed to the transcription of Trump's racial views attempt to misconstrue the facts, out of all proportion, to fit a non-racist narrative. Perhaps the page could be both improved and made more palatable by broadening it to discuss Trump's heavy reliance on stereotyping in general (which isn't only limited to race but also includes religion and gender). Avisnacks (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename - the name is jarringly ungrammatical. fish&karate 10:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate: What should we rename it to? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. fish&karate 11:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racial views of Donald Trump would be similar but fix grammar issues. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More sources that discuss these as a group: Associated Press ^[8]; PBS^[9]. All these should be in a reflist at the bottom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
^ 1 ^ 2 ^ Lopez, German (14 January 2018). "Donald Trump's long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2018". Vox. Retrieved 15 January 2018. ^ Kristof, Nicholas (23 July 2016). "Is Donald Trump a Racist?". New York Times. Retrieved 15 January 2018. ^ Duster, Chandelis (13 January 2018). "Is it finally time to call Trump racist?". NBC News. Retrieved 15 January 2018. ^ Berney, Jesse (15 August 2017). "Trump's Long History of Racism". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 15 January 2018. ^ D'Antonio, Michael (7 June 2016). "Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows". Fortune. Retrieved 15 January 2018. ^ "Trump's own words revive debate over whether he's racist". AP News. ^ "Every moment in Donald Trump's long and complicated history with race". PBS NewsHour. Archived from the original on January 6, 2018.

Sources

^ 1
^ 2
^ Lopez, German (14 January 2018). "Donald Trump's long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2018". Vox. Retrieved 15 January 2018.
^ Kristof, Nicholas (23 July 2016). "Is Donald Trump a Racist?". New York Times. Retrieved 15 January 2018.
^ Duster, Chandelis (13 January 2018). "Is it finally time to call Trump racist?". NBC News. Retrieved 15 January 2018.
^ Berney, Jesse (15 August 2017). "Trump's Long History of Racism". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 15 January 2018.
^ D'Antonio, Michael (7 June 2016). "Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows". Fortune. Retrieved 15 January 2018.
^ "Trump's own words revive debate over whether he's racist". AP News.
^ "Every moment in Donald Trump's long and complicated history with race". PBS NewsHour. Archived from the original on January 6, 2018.

Delete as WP:ATTACK page and unencyclopedic WP:SYNTHESIS effort. Trump's comments about incidents A, B and C can be mentioned in our articles about A, B, and C. And they usually are already prominently featured there, along with reactions to his remarks. — JFG ^talk 16:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Attack pages (i.e. Pages that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced.) should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G10. Why haven't you nominated it as such? Also, are you able to back up you claim of WP:SYNTHESIS? The first four sources establish that there is a 45 year history of racially-provocative remarks and racially-motivated actions, as detailed throughout the article.- MrX 17:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, a few sources perform the synthesis all by themselves, by threading a few cherrypicked incidents from decades ago to build a narrative of "45 years of racism" (conveniently ignoring all events in Trump's life that show him acting in a racially-neutral way). Then some Wikipedians involved in this article have piled on with their own WP:SYN efforts, imbued with a WP:RGW attitude that transpires in talk page comments; that is not a great start to writing encyclopedic coverage of Trump's "racial views". We might some day write an article about Trump's statements and actions as they pertain to race relations, while including relevant comments from both supporters, opponents and neutral observers. This article is not that: it's a collection of opinions from people accusing Trump of racism, bigotry, antisemitism and whatnot, overreacting to every word he says because they hear "dog whistles": ergo it's still an WP:ATTACK page. The nominator also mentions WP:QUOTEFARM, which is another valid policy reason to delete this page. I'd add WP:TNT given the rather hopeless state of the current effort. — JFG ^talk 16:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a few sources perform the synthesis all by themselves. That is literally not how WP:SYNTH works, please do not invent arguments. TheValeyard (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don' see that the article is nearly as bad as some are making it out to be. Our guide for determining what content belongs on the article should be the comprehensive source articles that cover his history, good or bad. If there are enough sources that cover his "racially-neutral acts" in the context of Trump's racial views, then those can be included also. Any other issues like excessive quotes or synthesis should be worked out on the article talk page. This is no more of an attack page than Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler or Stalin and antisemitism. - Mr X 🖋 17:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler is the title of a 1943 government report; the article does not itself attempt to discuss Hitler's personality. Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler would be a more appropriate comparison. That article, as well as Stalin and antisemitism, is a legitimate encyclopedic exposé, informed by historiography, decades after the subject's death. On the other hand, Racial views of Donald Trump is motivated by the current news cycle about a controversial living president; as such, it will be harder to keep it neutral and dispassionate. Barring deletion, I predict a messy battleground. We shall see... — JFG ^talk 17:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, somewhat cautiously/reluctantly. I don't buy at all that an article topic "inviting" problematic edits is a reason for deletion, but I do think that we're often too quick to create forks of high-profile topics that receive a new wave of coverage of a different aspect of the subject in every news cycle. Among those possible forks, though, there is a whole lot more coverage of this subject -- over a long period of time and in depth -- than most others such that it seems like one we should have, regardless of how difficult it is and will always be to present this with a NPOV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position in the nomination, Rhododendrites, I've added an explanation of why I feel the article invites trouble: because it's political, because it's "Racism!", because it's Trump - the terror trifecta that just begs controversy, POV, and bias in the way of content and tone. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilkelvi: Thanks for adding. I do still reject the notions that (a) problematic editing/editors is a reason for deletion, since we have policies and guidelines to deal with that, and violating those policies (or threats thereof) should never be a way to affect content; and (b) that controversy or accusations of bias by either internal or external voices should likewise affect content that satisfies Wikipedia policies and guidelines (content which doesn't meet PAG should be fixed for that fact, not because it's controversial). I suppose there's an argument about a notable topic that cannot possibly satisfy NPOV, but I'm skeptical of that argument, and don't think this is one of them regardless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what does "racial views" mean? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It means "opinions relating to race". It might actually be better to rename the article Donald Trump's opinions relating to race. Yaris678 (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article is pretty clearly a WP: coatrack for all the reasons people think he's a racist. A more appropriate name for that article would be "here's why Donald Trump is a racist". And I shouldn't have to point out how an article like that fails WP: NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, kinda the point is that lots of people do think he is a racist, and many sources detail that, and thus it is significant. Of course, we'd have to include the opinions of people who don't think he is racist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you do realize that we have a requirement to be impartial in our articles, and an article that is "here's why x is this bad thing" fails being impartial on form. It's like asking the question, When have you stopped beating your wife. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it's actually nothing like asking that question (because there is a possible "good answer - no, not racist", unlike in the wife beating question). And "impartial" means "as covered in reliable sources", not "what some random Wikipedia user thinks is impartial". Indeed it would be NOT impartial NOT to have this article given how widespread the coverage in reliable sources is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality doesn't mean "as covered in reliable sources", it means we present things impartially, and do not make arguments. Sources are not required to be impartial and can make arguments. An article structure such as "here's why x is this bad thing" is not impartial, and is making an argument, even if all content is sourced. It's why we don't have "Criticisms of" style articles either, they are inherently loaded and POV. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's pretty much what impartiality means on Wikipedia - reliable sources. And what article are you referring to when you characterize it as "here's why x is this bad thing"? Certainly not this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my first comment. The article is pretty much written as "here's why trump is racist". And it's pretty clear you're conflating NPOV with V so there's no reason to try and explain impartiality further with you. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article does it say "here's why trump is a racist" or anything remotely similar? That seems like a complete strawman, but maybe I missed something.- MrX 21:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I say that it says "here's why trump is a racist". I say it's a coatrack, and written as "here's why trump is racist". --Kyohyi (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is rather careful about it. Many sources are a lot more explicit and explain why. My very best wishes (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's an opinion article. ^Falling_Gravity 21:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyohy:, Are you suggesting that we should write about Trump's racial views without giving any examples of his racial views, even though several of the feature articles used as sources do exactly that. According to the essay you cited, a coatrack is an "article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely". What exactly are these two subjects in this article that different such that you would refer to it as a coatrack? - MrX 22:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about Trump's racial views, the article is a number of situations in which people have called him Racist. The article would have to identify and focus on his views, y'know describe what they are. It doesn't, race is merely the hook for a coat rack of incidents. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has signficant coverage in reliable sources. The claim of synthesis is just baffling; the article is not just a compilation of different comments or events — rather, a wide array of published material deals with the topic overall. Similar articles could be written on other presidents (for example, Woodrow Wilson). Surely we have an obligation to write this is a careful way. But we also have an equal obligation to include this topic, and in some detail. Trump is the president of the United States and what he has said and done, or reportedly said and done, is historically significant. Neutrality^talk 18:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Neutrality, starship.paint, and Volunteer Marek. AndrewOne (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO this "shithole" incident, which initiated the development of this article, will turn out to be a historical watershed event. It's been at the top of every news program, on talk news shows almost 24/7, and has been internationally a top news story as well. Dozens of sources are now discussing Trump's long history of racism. If this article is deleted we'd all have to believe that Wikipedia is in serious danger from a very vocal minority. Just like our democracy is. Gandydancer (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable, worldwide major coverage.Smeat75 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This isn't an opinion piece and Trump's racial views are a perpetual point of contention and debate on both sides of the aisle. I believe that rather than looking at deleting this article, it should be explored if there should be a separate article about his "shithole countries" remark, assuming it does not fall under NOTNEWS. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is inevitably going to be a notable topic, and it makes no difference (or shouldn't make any difference) whether anyone likes that or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a deletionist, not even I can argue for the deletion of this article. President Trump's racist rhetoric has been widely covered not just by the American media, but by world media. As the President of the United States, he ran his campaign under the wagon of prejudice and racism. His racist views preceded his election as President and goes back several decades as evident in the reliable sources cited. I want to make it clear that this article is primarily about his racist views, not his policies in government. His racist views passes the notability test and have received worldwide coverage from independent reliable sources. What I am seeing here is WP:IDLI. This article is well referenced and his views have received worldwide coverage from multiple sources - each addressing his views in detail. If his racist views were not notable enough, they would not have been covered in the magnitude they were covered. I would also like to draw to the attention of the closing admin (and the community) the fact that, his racist views are not a one off or a slip of the tongue (if it was, I would have been more inclined to merge it to his article), but a pattern of behaviour that goes back decades, at least as far back as 1973 when the U.S. Department of Justice brought litigation against him, his father and their company. This pattern of behaviour continued up to his election and thereafter. This article is encyclopedic and I see nothing wrong with it as a stand alone other than "delete because I don't like it". "The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like".31.54.224.18 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a deletionist.... Do you have an alternate account you need to disclose? Finding it hard to believe that your 7-hour, 6-edit history is exemplary of a deltionist mindset. TheValeyard (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @TheValeyard, I have been editing and improving English and French Wikipedia since the time of the dinosaurs and long before your current account. I just couldn't be bothered to create an account. My contribution as an IP is not less valid provided I'm not here to cause problems and my rationale for keep is policy based. I draw your attention to IPs are humans too. You might find it a good read. 31.54.224.18 (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A completely unprovable assertion, I'm afraid. TheValeyard (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More evidence of Wikipedia's insane liberal bias. The "sources" are a bunch of far-left politicians and partisan pundits crying racism. "Pretty Korean lady" is considered racist? How desperate are some of you? Thismightbezach (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most nonsensical (and blatantly false) comment I've seen at AfD in a looooonnnnggggg time. And that's saying something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From a well-known insane (but no longer WP:RS) liberal rag: "The African group of ambassadors to the United Nations has issued an extraordinary statement condemning the 'outrageous, racist and xenophobic remarks' by President Donald Trump and demanding a retraction and apology.".

Hurrah for the Blackshirts!. Suck on that. Narky Blert (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per nom. This is not only a WP:POVFORK, but falls under WP:SYNTH by stringing together a number of different incidents in which Donald Trump said something that could be perceived as racist and then comes to the conclusion that Donald Trump is a racist. Each incident is already covered in relevant articles. Nothing in the article reflects Trump's own views, which are technically unknown outside of his quote "I am not a racist." Instead the article is about what other people believe his views are. The analysis section is not actually an analysis, its just attack quotes from people like Jim Acosta who has been at odds with Trump since day 1.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant issue is the notability of the general topic of Trump's views on race, not the contents of the current article. Even if Trump's actual views on race cannot be determined with 100% certainty, we can certainly describe what sources have reported about the topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not possible to accurately determine what his views on race are, then you can't have an article on his views on race, simple as that. The appropriate name for the article as it currently stands would be "Perception of Donald Trump as a racist by other people" and I don't think I even need to explain why an article with that title wouldn't stand.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can have an article, because Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and we report what they say, simple as that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliable source that reports what Donald Trump actually thinks about race, as opposed to someone's opinion that he is racist? The only thing I can find is the quote of him saying that he's not a racist. You may or may not believe he is telling the truth, but it is the only statement by him about his racial views. Everything else is someone else's perception of what he said (ie. he said X and I think its racist).--Rusf10 (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Donald Trump has been obsessed with race for the entire time he has been a public figure." More sources cited in the first paragraph of the article, if you need them.- Mr X 02:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion piece and, therefore, not a reliable source. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question "What is the reliable source that reports what Donald Trump actually thinks about race, as opposed to someone's opinion that he is racist" misunderstands the issue completely. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, we base articles on reliable sources, reporting what they say. We are not meant to be arguing with the sources or using our own views to criticize them, hence the distinction between reliable sources reporting "what Donald Trump actually thinks" and reliable sources reporting someone's opinion about what he thinks is not something we need to worry over. Of course we would give academic sources more weight than newspaper pieces, but that's another matter. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, opinion sources are reliable in many situations if they are attributed. Also these reliable sources:

- Mr X 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the opinions absolutely can be used as RS per policy, especially if they are published by well known authors and in reputable newspapers, such as NYT. In fact, they are not just expert opinions, but qualify as analyses on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of you missed my point entirely. You can't title an article "Racial views of Donald Trump" and then write about someone else's view of him rather than his own views. The title of this article is not "Accusations of Donald Trump holding racist views"--Rusf10 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia's policies, it is perfectly legitimate to write an article about Donald Trump's racial views based on what reliable sources say about those views. You are free to not like that, but simply not liking it doesn't override our policies in a policy-based discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about liking it or not, the article title is extremely misleading. You just can't title the article one thing and then right about another. The reliable sources are not about his views, they are about other people's view of him. His views (which is supposed to be the topic of the article) cannot be verified outside of a couple quotes where he says he is not a racist, everything else is just speculation about his views.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please brush up on what a WP:SECONDARY source is. Sources written by other people which discuss his views are secondary sources, which is what we use. Statements from Trump himself are primary sources which we might mention but which are best used in the context of secondary sources. This is precisely what the article does. Your objection is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can cut the condescending language. I know the difference between primary and secondary sources. The secondary sources don't describe his views they describe other people views of him. Using your logic I can create Criminal activity of Hillary Clinton because I can find reliable sources that report other people have opined that she broke the law.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments suggest you actually don't know the difference. And hey, if you can find lots of reliable sources on "Criminal activity of Hillary Clinton" (I can't believe someone is still trying to use the "Butter emails!" argument. Seriously, get a new obsession) then let's see them. Otherwise stop making crap up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't like that suggestion, did you? You just revealed your bias. But here's the sources that could be used for that article since you asked: [64] [65] and for balance an opposing viewpoints article [66] Opinions reported by reliable sources. I could synth that together with a couple news reports on the investigation and create an article. It doesn't prove she broke the law, but that's not important, we just need reliable sources reporting that other people think she broke the law. If you want to lower the bar to have a low-quality POV article about one person, then you shouldn't have a problem with another low-quality POV article about someone you like.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't "reveal my bias". I just pointed out how dumb your suggestion was, because it lacked reliable sources. ~~And seriously buddy, NYDailyNews? That's like a definition of not a reliable source.~~ Fox News not much better. If you could "synth" anything, then go ahead - but you really can't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When people break the law, it's settled in a courtroom. In that case the "Criminal activity of Hillary Clinton" article wouldn't be appropriate without her being found guilty of crimes. On the other hand if you wanted to write "Email activity of Hilary Clinton" go ahead with your sources. starship.paint ~ KO 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're 100% correct, it would not be appropriate. And neither is this article for the same reason. It has not been proven that Donald Trump is a racist.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It has not been proven that Donald Trump is a racist" - what in the world does that have to do with the notability or appropriateness of this article? And still waiting on those reliable sources you promised.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just dismissed Fox News as not a reliable source, you are blinded by your extreme liberal bias. I also included the op-eds in the New York Times too, to show that the opinions about Hillary Clinton were being reported there too. At the end of the day, that article would be and this article is based purely on POV. Just because the media reports on POV doesn't mean its an encyclopedic topic.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a problem if the article were titled "Donald Trump's Racism" and said that trump was racist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly comes to the conclusion that Trump is a racist, the title doesn't match the content though.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - biased political opinions and allegation which are unsupported by any sense of logic - politicians gearing up for 2018 elections. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out regarding these political bias etc that even Paul Ryan called the mexican judge comment racist etc; it's not just the "liberals" who are calling him racist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that if you can gather enough opinions in MSM of people calling someone a racist that makes it true, despite proof and hard evidence to the contrary?

? Nevermind - rhetorical question - the answer is in plain view. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's time for you to dial it back a tad. None here are arguing that the subj is a racist, nor is there "proof" that the subj is not a racist. The article simply notes the many instances where sources have described what he said as racist. It is not a conclusion drawn, it simply is what it is, notable opinions. TheValeyard (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid spinoff per Talk:Donald Trump#Racial views. Covering a notable critical view of a politician's statements does not violate NPOV. –dlthewave ☎ 03:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge into immigration policy Trump related articles. The article title is POV and Trump denies he said it in a racist setting and tone. Pure POV -- delete. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV, but anyway, "POV" is NOT, per policy a valid reason for deletion. And if you want to suggest a different title, please do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the title change to Shitholegate since this is what the press is calling it now. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that. At least the article title would match the subject of the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This too is completely false to the extent that it suggests you didn't even read the article. Only about 20% of the article is about the shithole comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments suggest you didn't read the article either because none of the article is actually about Donald Trump's racial views.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to try and use the "I know you are but what am I" argument? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article would benefit by focusing on the shithole incident instead of trying to criticize stuff throughout Trump’s whole life. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re-name to Shitholegate and delete the other material. In principle a general article about his views on race works, but not in practice (the opposite of Wikipedia which does not work in principle but works in practice). Consider the lead paragraph following the lead sentence. “In 1973, he was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for housing discrimination against black renters.[5][6][7]”. No, the family business was sued, for allegedly discriminating, which they denied, and there was a settlement with no admission of wrongdoing, so the quoted sentence is very slanted. “In 2016, he was accused of racism for insisting in 1989, and maintaining as late as 2016, that a group of black and Latino teenagers were guilty of raping a white woman in the 1989 Central Park jogger case even after, in 2002, Matias Reyes, a serial rapist in prison, confessed to raping the jogger alone, and DNA evidence confirmed his guilt.[8][9][10]”. There had been a confession, perhaps coerced, by a guy Trump said was guilty, which is a huge fact in Trump’s favor that is omitted, plus what’s the race of Reyes, is he lily white? So again our sentence is slanted. And, our Wikipedia article about the case says, “Between 9 and 10 pm on the night of April 19, 1989, approximately 30 teenage perpetrators committed several attacks, assaults, and robberies in the northernmost part of Manhattan's Central Park” so why are we implying that only one man was involved? “In 2011, he became the leading proponent of the already discredited conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the US, and he repeated the false claim for the next five years”. Trump’s main point was that Obama should release his birth certificate, and after Obama did so Trump and many millions of Americans looked at it and concluded Obama was eligible to the presidency. So the lead looks quite slanted to me, and omits anything that might lead a reader to think, hey, maybe he’s not a racist. I take no position about whether he is or not, but this BLP obviously takes a position and pushes it quite hard. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Edited.06:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying Trump didn't let up after the birth certificate was released. [67] Not in 2012, 2013, 2015. starship.paint ~ KO 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump was proud of having gotten the certificate released and later reminded people about it. None of it would have happened if more than one of Obama’s parents had been a U.S. citizen, which this article of course does not mention because the POV being pushed here is that it was all a racial issue rather than a citizenship issue. Tell that to the very white President Chester Arthur who was hounded for his birth certificate too because his father (also very white) was not a U.S. citizen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What??? You really gonna make excuses for racist birther conspiracies? "Oh they didn't mean it that way, they were just concerned about his parents, look at the case of Chester Arthur"? Seriously? Gimme a break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy theory is that everyone who was grateful Obama released the certificate is a racist. RACIST, RACIST, RACIST! Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the conspiracy theory you're defending is that the motivation of the people who attacked Obama was some genuine concern about his parents and some... bullshit about Chester Arthur. It wasn't. The motivation for vast majority of them was... racism. And yeah, you can try to trivialize it by mocking the allegation with your "RACIST, RACIST, RACIST" troll (and doing that is itself sort of fucked up) but guess what? The shoe fits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The people pushing the birth certificate bullshit conspiracy were motivated by pure, naked racism.[68][69] - Mr X 🖋 17:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who wanted Obama to release the certificate was a racist. Obama himself ultimately wanted to release it, so in your analysis he is either racist or pandered to racists. This article is 75% POV-pushing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should really stop now. Obama "wanted" to release the certificate only to put the stupid racist conspiracies to rest. The people who claimed that Obama was not a citizen and "wanted" (see this is how you do false equivocation - use the same word but with two different meanings) him to release the certificate were motivated by racism. "In my analysis" my butt. Comparing Obama's motivation to that of racist a-holes who spread this bullshit around is, like I said, messed up. You really really need to stop with excuse-for-racist-theories nonsense, because you're not making yourself look good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VM, I think hell would freeze over before you allow this article to convey the stated motivation of the Trump camp: “Mr. Trump did a great service to the President and the country by bringing closure to the issue....” As for peer pressure and political correctness, may they never rule Wikipedia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't peer pressure or political correctness. Not defending racist conspiracy theories is just common decency and a good upbringing. (also portraying the case of Obama being diplomatic, grown up and stoic about the attacks on himself as him actually giving credence to these racist theories is not only a ton of bullshit, it is also very low).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"closure to issue" - wow, like a bully saying "i did a great service to the kid I bullied by making them change schools to where they are not bullied". This article shouldn't convey that stated motivation; all it can do is quote that stated motivation if DUE + including caveats if RS include them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely condemn the racists who were surely meddling in that controversy, just like I condemn those who use guilt by association to tar others who were involved in it. We already have an article devoted to this subject, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, how many more do we need? This article is a POV fork just like it would be if titled “All the really rotten things about Trump”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there weren't just a couple racists "meddling" in that "controversy", the whole thing was a racist conspiracy theory. But hey, maybe in reality, or at least according to you these people were actually concerned about the legitimacy of the Chester Arthur presidency (sic!) from the 19th century. And it wasn't a "controversy" but a straight up conspiracy theory who anyone with a shred of decency tried to debunk. But I guess "there were good people on both sides", ey? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment here, so take the last word if you like. You can even be dishonest again if you want (I never remotely said anything about a “couple” racists). You allude to Charlottesville. I think the mayor of Charlottesville is a good person, and at the time of that controversy he supported keeping the Lee statue there. But we already established above that hell would freeze over before anything other than anti-Trump info goes into this BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the very fact that people are even questioning the notability of this article pretty much puts the whole notion of "liberal bias" on Wikipedia to rest. If Wikipedia can't have an article on one of the most reported and commented aspects of a US presidency because it hurts some people's feelings, then we actually have the opposite problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This all falls with in the guidelines of a WP:SIZESPLIT. Be it from the Trump article, Political positions of Donald Trump, or Immigration policy of Donald Trump. There's some editorializing that should probably be dealt with. At the very least a conversation should be opened about renaming as I don't feel this is a case for a common name under WP:POVNAME. This may also be the most NPOV name possible but thats a discussion for a talk page. I can't justify a deletion here. It doesn't seem to be a POVFORK.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable subject with myriad RS covering it. Our job is to document that coverage. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm on the fence on this one but, ultimately, leaning towards delete. The article seems closing on OR in that several incidents are strung together under a single title without multiple RS connecting them under the common theme of the article. Chetsford (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is false - there is a TON of "multiple RS connecting them under the common theme of the article". For example [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was only created 5 days ago. It's going to go through many changes before it reaches an agreed-upon final structure, or even definitions. Also, I suggest renaming it something broader like Social divisiveness under... Fishlandia (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reluctantly - The only reason this "article" (too many issues to genuinely call it that) was created rests solely on Trump's recent "sh*thole" remark; naturally, enough editors will believe this news story needs a page in some form. However, I'm not entirely sure if the article creator even knows what this article is about. An actual article about Trump's racial views would have the reported views of, well, Trump, not every account when someone believes he was being racist -- all loosely strung together. We may as well call this article "Instances when Donald Trump was racist" because that is the POV being pressed here. Would actually waiting for scholarly sources a few years from now have ultimately resulted in an actual encyclopedic article? Absolutely, but unfortunately that is not the encyclopedia editors seem to want to work toward.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you have not actually read the sources. SYNTH applies to when editors connect a+b+c etc. It does not apply when RS do the same. And since there are multiple RS that explicitly connect his racist acts/views over the years - going back to his refusing to rent property to black people - its not a valid argument. This has been pointed out at least 2 or 3 times above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assume all you want Only in death; it doesn't make your statement any more correct. I'd be more interested in your opinion to my full argument, not one part you thought you could rebuttal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read the sources that explicitly linked the racial attacks, policies, statements then you don't understand WP:SYNTH. Article should be 'Donald Trump and Racism' based on the content. An article on 'Donald Trump racial views' would consist of 'Donald Trump says he isn't racist, heres a list a mile long of sources that say why he is wrong, and why his views are racist'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep: The article is well-written and formatted, and everything is reliably sourced. I don't see a bias in it and any claim there is one is like saying that the article on the German invasion of Poland in 1939 is biased because it says that Germany invaded Poland in 1939. ~~Though I'd propose a page move to "Donald Trump's racial views" since that'd be more grammatically correct.~~ – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 09:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Falling Gravity, how many articles on Trump do we need Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, we would have a lot less if he kept his mouth shut. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename to "Analysis of Donald Trump's racial history" or something. This article does not do a good job of conveying his stated views, but seems to be media analysis of some of his statements. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, you're right that it's not really about Trump's racial views. Your suggestion to rename it to Analysis of Donald Trump's racial history or something similar has merit. It really is about the history.- Mr X 🖋 15:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This article does not do a good job of conveying his stated views, but seems to be media analysis of some of his statements." Yes, instead of simply describing "his stated views" (i.e. his views based on his own statements which are primary sources), this page describes his views based on secondary publications in media. That is exactly as it suppose to be. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article per multiple reliable sources covering this exact subject. Better to split it out of main article to avoid undue weight. Title might still need tweaking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -but re-title. The Title seems off, but the article's sources are solid as Sarek stated before me. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cobbling together the remarks from sources to try to paint a picture (and there is a clear picture being attempted) ends with SYNTH and POV pushing. I'm not even a fan of the guy, but I can see the POV being advanced. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more time. There's no "cobbling together". There are many many reliable sources which discuss the entirety of his views in a full context. This is another comment which either didn't bother reading the actual article or read it and decided to pretend it's something it's not (i.e. strawman).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you decided to ignore good faith. I read the article, I just don't agree with you. Maybe that's a difficult concept for you to grasp. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a 40-year history with reliable sources is not cobbling together sources to paint a picture. If there is something missing from this article that would show Trump in some other way, supported by a reliable source, please add it! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give your opinion all the weight it merits. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your response to editors refuting your argument by pointing out that the sources are the cobblers, then you should not be participating in AfD. This point has been made (with sources) several times in this discussion. That degree of WP:IDHT is astonishing.- Mr X 🖋 22:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll give your opinion all the weight it merits as well. I'm so happy you know how to wikilink favorite. The fact that you completely miss the fact that these "sources" cobbled together the material just to push an agenda doesn't surprise me. Then again, since I don't answer to you or place any value on your opinion, further explaination is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was an earlier and ongoing discussion on this article before this AFD at WP:BLP/N. --Masem (t) 17:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it encyclopedic? No. Just because numerous allegations have been published in center-left news sources, it doesn't automatically grant inclusion in WP. It's nothing more than politically based allegations based on opinions, innuendo and speculation with zero factual evidence. I'm still waiting for proof of Russian collusion...where is it? Embarrassing is the best word I can think of to describe it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several cleanup things that need to happen, but editors at the BLP/N discussion have noted that there are RSes that have done such lists of events where Trump appeared racist, justify that this list is reasonable. But I do concern about its presentation that should be broader about how he has seemed racist (from sources) his career, and that the same type of concerns we worry about with "Criticism of X" articles be kept here - eg , if Trump or other appropriate voices have countered these claims, this needs to be included to be neutral, etc. --Masem (t) 17:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a highly notable topic. A Google search for "african union trump racist" yielded 1.98M hits, from all around the world, and just about every one on the first two pages is a WP:RS news source. The exception is The Sun; and anyone who thinks that is a left-wing publication knows nothing about the UK press. (It's owned by Rupert Murdoch.)

I haven't studied the article for WP:POV and WP:OR, but neither is a reason for deletion if the topic is notable. Issues of that sort can be dealt with by editing towards consensus. Narky Blert (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming reasonable people would want to touch that screwy article with a 10-foot pole. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Assuming reasonable people would want to touch that screwy article with a 10-foot pole."

I assume, then, that you have never tried to correct a straightforward typo on one of those Middle East-related pages which cannot be edited by WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED editors, who have to ask on the Talk Page for someone else to do it. If you think this page is contentious, you have seen nothing. Narky Blert (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's only a collection of random events if Wikipedia:Reliable sources haven't connected them. They have. The sheer number of them rates an article. --GRuban (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this is a very controversial topic, I have faith in the Wikipedia community maintaining a strong and NPOV page. This is not only a very controversial topic, but also one that is the focus of many debates in the media and thus relevant to many of our readers-- making it all the more imperative to have an encompassing, representative, and NPOV page. Editors who believe the page to have problems should work to fix them.--Calthinus (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a valid topic for an encyclopedia; it's useful to have the history, scope and details in one coherent article. Encyclopedic, notable, verifiable. What's not to like? —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Extensive RS coverage. Long-term encyclopedic value, as this is a subject of interest and scholarship for future generations. I'm actually pleasantly surprised to see that this article exists, as I've been stumbling on extensive sources that would be worthwhile for inclusion on this subject, but I never bothered adding them to the existing 'Political positions of Donald Trump' article (or its forks) because the subject is too long to tack onto already-enormous articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been a regular at the Donald Trump biography page and related pages for several years. Repeatedly during that time there have been suggestions to say something about his (let’s call them) controversial views and actions toward minorities. Up to now those suggestions have always been rejected as undue or inappropriate. Yes, here on “liberal” Wikipedia, consensus has kept this kind of material out of Donald Trump for several years. But with the explosion of coverage over the past week, consensus had to change in the face of the overwhelming amount and intensity of Significant Coverage by Multiple Reliable Sources. That coverage included not just “I condemn this” quotes or opinion pieces, but multiple mainstream pieces pulling together his long history of such comments into a coherent narrative. This has transformed from an occasional incident into a well documented pattern. There was once a time to object to this article; that time is past. --MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If anyone has any doubt about how politically motivated this article is see the discussion at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#Allegedly The current article presents Trump's "shithole" remark as fact (in quotes) when what he said is actually disputed, not only by him but by other people who were there.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "politically motivated", that right there is a pretty inaccurate description of the situation. And actually the article DOES include all the denials, the can't recalls-later-changed-to-denials-later-changed-to-semantic-games and all that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this has nothing to do with notability and reasons for deletion or lack thereof. Keep it at the appropriate talk page please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely a few editors that I see scanning the talk pages that appear acting as righting great wrongs (eg "Trump is a very bad and evil person, we need to point out every flaw"-type logic), and that's not helpful to the development of the article. But there ware also several editors without any apparent bias goal, and from this AFD and BLP/N, there's definitely objective reasons to keep the article given the weight sources have given the topic. There's a lot of proverbial landmines in how the article can be built, and things that should be done, but that's cleanup, and not an AFD reason. --Masem (t) 14:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Disgusting partisan attack creation. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV-fork, coatrack. The entire point of the article seems to be to advance the POV that Trump is racist. -109.40.3.65 (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)— 109.40.3.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not at all, the article allows for claims that Trump is not a racist, so why not edit the article to reflect Trump's love for all humanity? If they are referenced, of course. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion is not for topics that are controversial and difficult to ensure neutrality over. If anything this is a topic where the world expects Wikipedia to cover with more nuance than partisans of either side might like. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are biased news sources that support the politicial opposition, the article reads like an attack page with unproven allegations of racism, and it doesn't matter how many unfounded opinions are published, we are expected to comply with WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:ATTACK. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that "biased" does not actually mean "anything that Atsme doesn't like". You're always welcome to take up the reliability of individual sources at WP:RSN, but here there are so many you'd be wasting your time. You'd also be wasting your time because what you regard as "biased" is very different from what Wikipedia regards as bias.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biased news sources - I mean there are enough reliable sources that are not opinion pieces that this deserves an article; whether you or I or whoever thinks they are biased is irrelevant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do want independent sources for notability/verifyability and NPOV, regardless of bias. That's not an issue here (the article has many) but for example, if this article could only be built from the sources on Trump's media "blacklist", like WaPost or CNN, that would pose the independence problem. Again, this is not the case here; the source range is very broad. --Masem (t) 15:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point, possibly one unique to this BLP subject. The words of the President of the US have historically carried a great deal of weight, and when this one yells "fake news" and targets WaPo and CNN specifically, it can color their coverage of him in turn and make it less reliable for use in the Wikipedia. What happens when or if the President widens that scope, perhaps even deliberately so? It would become some sort of meta-well-poisoning. We are truly living in strange times. TheValeyard (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, the media negativity reaches far beyond just WaPo and CNN, and I imagine that after the "Fake News Awards" are announced tonight, (surely it's a comedy), the current 90% negativity may jump another 2%. Some members of MSM published articles about Trump's negative media coverage: NPR, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times. The problem with this article is the misalignment with WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT, but you could say it maintains a sense of consistency with most of the other Trump articles in that it cites primarily news sources, and includes allegations based on unproven media opinions, inunendo, misinformation/disinformation, political bias and speculation, such as the Trump-Russia collusion. Based on my own experiences, attempts to add factual material citing center-right sources in a Trump article may require a bit of wizardry. If we're going to create POV Forks based on color, why not focus on the color Trump likes most...GREEN?! 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And based on my experience what YOU consider "center right" sources are wacky far right conspiracy websites, and what you consider "leftist" sources are traditional, centrist outlets. And what is the point of this comment anyway? What are you talking about? And seriously, you're sort of giving away the fact that you're here with an WP:AGENDA by throwing this term "MSM" around so casually. You don't like mainstream sources? Fine. Go to a webpage where fringe and wacky sources serve as basis for content. But that ain't here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VM, remove the word "YOU" from your comments and focus on the topic if you want me to engage in a discussion with you or please just don't address me at all. Last time I looked, your user name wasn't spelled M-A-S-E-M which is who I was addressing, but now that you've cast some mighty hefty aspersions against me, I'll respond in defense. I don't cite wacky anything and any attempt to deny that the racial allegations being made against Trump are cited primarily to biased sources is wishful thinking. I don't have an agenda, and I don't promote anything but NPOV and maintaining quality articles in WP. Good day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my comment again: I stressed that this current article was fine because a broad number of sources have pointed to this that there are sufficient independent sources to overcome a bias from a dependent source. Yes, many show clear dislike for Trump, but not all are as engaged with fighting Trump as some like the WaPost that Trump has specifically called out and are not happy with being called out. I only suggested a hypothetical situation in response to OID's comment about bias, where if it were only dependent sources, like the WaPost due to this, being used for sourcing and there was no other sourcing, this would be a problematic article due to the dependent bias. But I am asserting that this is not an issue with the current article as is; there may be broad media bias, but it is sufficiently covered through independent sources. --Masem (t) 19:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also to reiterate from my previous !vote - there are no question some content issues, and some POV lines being crossed. But AFD is not cleanup - the question asked is that is the topic of Donald Trump's racial views notable and can be pulled together without engaging in synthesis, and the answer is yet - there are sources from RSes that cover Trump's racial views throughout his career. I fully agree not every incident on this page currently is appropriate, and it needs a more neutral approach, but that's not the question to ask at AFD. --Masem (t) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Masem, but I was asking in the context of WP:Attack page which states: ...a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Also, the argument could be made per WP:BIASED Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Read the lede. I'm hard-pressed to see this article's purpose as anything other than to disparage. Further, If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person. I just felt the policy presented a pretty convincing argument. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an attack page. It does not "primarily exist". It's no "unsourced or poorly sourced". At some point this becomes WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TEND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has a very easy potential to be an attack page if editors aren't careful, and I fully agree there's content that should be added, as we would with a "Criticism of X" article, to make sure that we're presented the best set of views from reliable sources including any counter-points made by Trump or spokespersons. --Masem (t) 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Religious views of Adolf Hitler exists, I see no reason why Racial views of Donald Trump should be deleted. Further, this is a notable subject which received plenty of coverage from reliable third party sources. Just because some don't like it does not mean it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not here to cater to your feelings. We can't keep changing the rules just to fit some people's political agenda.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huge difference between that article and this one. Hitler's religious views are well-documented through his speeches and writings. His views have been studied by academics for years. In this article, we have content that is based off of a bunch of media reports that have a political motivation to claim Trump is racist.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're being slightly disingenuous, the article is based on "a bunch of media reports" dating back to 1973, not just a random collection of recent reports. These are reliable sources that are used, there is no motivation to "claim" anything. Trump's words are Trump's words, no one made him say them. TheValeyard (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Rusf10 So is Mr. Trump's racist views. We go by sources here. If you have an issue, take it to the appropriate board or go and tell Mr Trump to shut his gob. We can't keep jumping hula hoops just because an article is too sensitive and offends your sense and sensibilities. This project is called Wikipedia, not "Nanny-pedia." The nomination of this article is not based on one justifiable Wiki policy. It is politically driven as evident throughout these discussions. I don't have time for such foolishness. Is this Wikipedia or "Poli-pedia?" If Wiki is now a political tool, then I want my money back. I have gone through some of the delete arguments and I have never seen such foolishness. One of which mentions left bias. Is this for real? i am not an American and do not have time for the left or right silly games some play down there. Why does it always have to be a left or right thing? Why is it never the centre? Why does it even have to be a left or right thing? Some people are using Wiki as a political tool and I find that worrying. Senegambianamestudy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If your trying to make the argument that because your not American, your opinion must be neutral, that's garbage. I don't care what country you're from or what your political beliefs are, but you still have a clear bias here when you are comparing Trump to Hitler. The issue is biased sources are being used that blur opinion and fact. Like this Washington Post source that is used in the article [77]. The article attributes a quote to Trump as reported by "several people briefed on the meeting". The Post does not reveal who these people are. That's complete journalist garbage. And I know someone is going to say "We at wikipedia regard the Washington Post as a reliable source. How dare you attack them" To be clear, I am not suggesting never using the Washington Post as a source, but that particular article is junk. How as a journalist do you quote someone when you yourself did not hear the quote and you won't even name the people who claimed that they did? Because of that article and a few others quoting Trump through unnamed sources, we're now told it is a fact and using a word like "allegedly" is a misrepresentation because reliable sources are reporting it as a direct quote. The media relies a lot on unnamed sources , especially in recent years. I don't know what Trump said, I wasn't there, its very possible that he said exactly what was quoted, but no one knows (except for the unnamed sources, who absolutely should be named in this article). The person who wrote the Washington Post article really doesn't know either, but they want you to believe that they do. The "shithole" incident was the inspiration for this article and the other incidents (which each taken by themselves do not necesarily show racism) are strung toether as WP:SYNTH to come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is a racist (something that you yourself clearly believe). The people using wikipedia as a political tool are the ones who wrote this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the initial report of anonymous sources, there were later named sources 1. Senator Durbin has been quoted as agreeing that Trump had said shithole. 2. Senator Tim Scott said that Senator Graham confirmed the media reports of shithole as basically accurate. starship.paint ~ KO 07:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately six million dead Jewish people killed because of Hitler's views on their religion are reasons to question your competence in determining similarities. The disparity in notability is a reason to delete, not keep. Equating them clearly diminishes the evil inflicted by Hitler's antisemitism and is quite offensive. --DHeyward (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rusf10. Wikipedia does not go by facts/truth or what you believe the facts are. We go by sources here, reliable sources at that. By your own rationale, you are pushing OR. If you have a problem with the sources, take it to the appropriate board.

@DHeyward, Emotional blackmail does not work on Afd and certainly does not work with me. I find it a real turn off and you won't get any sympathy from me. If you have a problem understanding my statement, I rather you ask me for clarification rather than misrepresenting me above and below. The key word here is "views" - notable views at that, and both views are notable. As I and other editors have noted, those screaming for the deletion of this article are merely doing so because they don't like it. You have just proven this point. I do not have time for such foolishness. If you are going to ask for an article to be deleted, do it on policy, not on emotions. I have no time for emotional rants. I do not have time to be listening to sob stories. If you want an article deleted, convince me based on policy, not emotional blackmail. This is Afd. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious attack page. It's a misnomer and an example of opinion cruft and WP:NOT. The accurate conglomeration is really "What other people think Trumps views of race are." It's as fact based as such other articles like "Race and Intelligence" and come from the basest views of contributors attracted to the topic. There are no winners, least of all the reader, and if Trump has policies regarding civil rights, immigration or other programs that touch on race, they should be integrated into those articles rather than arguing (as I just read in the discussion) how it relates to Hitler. If there's a corollary to Godwin's law for Wikipedia, it's that an article should be deleted when the discussion devolves into mentioning Hitler. It's the clearest sign that a topic is not based on sources, facts or truth but feelings of editors supported by opinions they agree with. --DHeyward (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, welcome back from your short retirement! Can you please explain how you believe this article a) "exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject"; or b) "is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced."? So far, no one claiming this is an WP:ATTACK page has been able to do so, but perhaps you can enlighten us.- Mr X 🖋 13:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MrX. Can you please stop bludgeoning editors who comment at AfDs and RfCs related to Donald Trump? That would be fantastic. Thanks! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: Respectfully, I don't believe I'm bludgeoning anyone, but if you think my conduct is out of order, may I suggest you raise it at WP:ANI?- Mr X 🖋 14:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The naming choice thus far are sub-par but that can be discussed on the talk page later. From housing issues in the 70s though the birther stuff to pretty much everything Trump has said about Mexicans, his unacceptable opinions, actions, and words have been characterized as racist on numerous occasions by a lot of reliable sources. Too much for the bio and extends beyond politics so not appropriate for a political positions article. ValarianB (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. I don't edit political articles, but it is difficult enough to patrol and settle disputes without fresh new articles that are designed specifically to divide people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All political subjects are divisive to some degree. It does not mean we should not have pages about them. Was this page created by Steve Quinn specifically to divide participants of the project? I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being divisive doesn't mean that valid articles should be deleted. Multiple people have mentioned POVFORK, yet essentially the same POV is present in the main Donald Trump article in its section.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And none of that overcomes WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK. The divisive nature may explain it's creation, but that wasn't the policy based reason I gave for deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, I don't see that either of those apply. A POV fork is a fork designed to advance the POV of an editor or group of editors. A google news search for "donald trump" "racism" (link) returns over 2.5 million hits. Bear in mind that this is a news search and both terms are required to be in the result in order to return it. Even a much more strict term, like "Trump is racist" (link) returns well over a hundred thousand hits. And again; that's a news search, not a general search.

As to it being a coatrack... A coatrack is an article that is not actually about it's nominal subject. What, exactly, do you think this article is about, if not about the racial views of Donald Trump? That is a serious question, by the way, not a rhetorical device. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dennis Brown in that POVFORK and COATRACK are indeed issues. I agree for the most part with Masem when he said above, "there are no question some content issues, and some POV lines being crossed." I presume he was referring to balance; however, WP:BALANCE states (my bold underline): The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. This article is noncompliant with BLP. In its current state it is an attack page beginning with the first sentence written in Wikivoice: "...has a history of making racially-charged remarks and taking actions perceived as racially-motivated." Opinions are not facts, and we don't write opinions in Wikivoice. Per policy it should either be deleted or reduced to a stub until a neutral version can be written. The lede is what shows up in the Google searches, and as MOS confirms, a reader may not read beyond the lede. Full sections in the body are cherrypicked and include sections that don't represent the "Donald Trump racial views", rather they represent the opinions of others. If the article is not deleted, at the very least it should be retitled, reduced to a stub per policy, and rewritten in compliance with NPOV including in-text attribution to the source as relative to the questionable biased sources that have been cited. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, so much wrong in the above. 1. He has a history of making 'racially charged' and outright racist statements. This is backed up by multiple reliable sources. It can be stated as fact in wikivoice if we felt like it. As it stands its almost always attributed. This is not a BLP issue. 2. A POVFORK is where an article is created to fork off a POV that is counter to either what is in the article or the general consensus of reliable sources. It is not when the same POV in the article is expanded in a larger article. Unless you are going to genuinely claim that the consensus is not that Trump makes racist statements, has supported racist political policies and has been accused over a period of 30 years of racially-related actions? 3. COATRACK is where an article is supposedly about one thing but is actually filled with information about another. This is clearly not the case here. 4. BALANCE is where reliable sources contradict each other. Again this requires that there actually is disagreement in reliable sourcing about his racial views. So to sum up: You dont understand POVFORK or COATRACK, BLP is satisfied by reliable sourcing and widespread coverage. And you seem to be saying that the various events in the article are either not racist, or that there is a parity of reliable sourcing that agrees they are not racist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should point out that when someone rebuts a number of claims, responding by saying that you agree with those claims does nothing to support them. As to the actual argument you presented, allow me to summarize what OiD and others have said countless times here: Donald trump absolutely and without question has made a large number of racially charged remarks. That is -in no way- an opinion. If you disagree, you are denying reality. "Donald Trump is racist" could be argued to be an opinion, as we have no way of proving that his thoughts align with his words and actions, but for all intents and purposes, that is also a well-supported fact. Despite that, you might note that the article never actually goes so far as to call Trump racist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is stated policy in WP:NPOV (my bold underline): Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." That is policy - thank you and good day. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you didn't actually respond to what I said. It's not an opinion that Trump has made racially charged statements. It's a verifiable fact. And right below that quote you pulled, it says in big, bold words: "Avoid stating facts as opinions." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain it all to you on my TP - don't want to make this AfD any longer than it needs to be. 😉 ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an excellent point by two contributors above: this is all a matter of fact. He said what he said, and this is fact. Even more importantly, what he said has became a matter of official policies, which is also a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classic double entendre - JD: "I got slapped with a trout!" Friend asks: "Where?" JD responds: "Down by the river." Friend asks, "No, where on your body were you slapped?" Here's another thought: Politician "A" says, "Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we’re also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable, especially those who may be dangerous." Opposition responds: "You're a racist!" Now you tell me, is the opposition stating a fact or his opinion? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page only tells the following: (a) the subject made such and such comments (yes, he said it; this is a matter of fact), and (b) his comments have received such and such response from the public, media, other politicians, etc. (yes, they said it, this is also a matter of fact; no one tells the opinions are the absolute truth). In addition to the statements/views, the page should also includes materials about certain actual policies by the administration, and these policies are also a matter of fact, even if some of them have been eventually rejected. Surprisingly, it does not include much about the actual policies. I think it should. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, the question was simply whether or not the opposition's response, "You're a racist!" is a statement of fact or is it opinion based on Politician A's comment about law-breaking undocumented workers being held accountable? A simple yes or no answer will do. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently documented racism with sufficient impact to warrant its own article. Artw (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the level of coverage worldwide. It would be remiss of us not to document this subject, and given the amount of coverage, it would be almost as remiss of us to relegate said coverage to acceptable-length sections or subsections on different pages. The "delete" have thus far been highly unconvincing, and as strongly partisan as any split I've seen, with such insanely obvious falsehoods as claiming that the article comes to conclusions it doesn't come to, that the article is a work of synthesis, and that the existence of the article is an attack on Trump. If Trump hadn't opened his big mouth and made so many objectively (and so many more arguably) racist comments in the public view over the course of his life, then the RSes would never have given it so much coverage that we couldn't help but write an article on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has received significant worldwide coverage, and is far too large at this point to document in a section of an article. It needs its own article. Concern about this seems to stem from WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any policy-based view. Smartyllama (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every time he says anything about race it makes the news for days. And yes much that he says about race is overtly racist and his life long habit of this should be noted. Bojackh (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trump's racist remarks have become common and prominent and he blatantly used them to gather supporters. Perhaps we should compromise and change this article's name to Donald Trump racial controversies. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Compromise"? You just unilaterally changed the article title with zero discussion. As I just stated on your talk page, you need to revert. Immediately. If you want to change the article title, it needs to be discussed at the article talk page. WP:BRD is one thing, what you just did, considering this AfD and the heated discussion at the article's talk page was turn the 'D' for "discuss" into 'D' for "disruptive". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:POVFORK Also, if this is to stay, I better get working on 44 articles for every other president. This is simply not encyclopedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral 33 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not saying there is reason to keep this article, I don't think it automatically follows the existence of articles for one president means there should be articles for another. We have articles George Washington and slavery, Thomas Jefferson and slavery and Abraham Lincoln and slavery. (We also have Alexander Hamilton and slavery.) It may be there is justification for some other US presidents. However this doesn't mean we should have an article Ronald Reagan and slavery or Bill Clinton and slavery. Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am running Google search for exact match "Bill Clinton and slavery" [78] - this is zero. "Donald Trump and racism" - 289,000 [79], with top hit by MSNBC entitled "White House simply can't overcome Trump's racist presidency" [80]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Benon, (he is not even notable ehought to have a wikipedia biography) is about as opponionated biased anti trump source as you could find. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it's Steve Benen.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Ultimately I'm just not convinced this is the best way to cover these statements as opposed to mentioning them in other sub-articles. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the other sub-articles? They're huge. In fact, the consensus to create this article initially arose precisely because the info could not fit in a parent-article. (This is a "sub article", btw).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can always remove the disproven WP:RECENTISM material to make room. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Lack of status and recency are not valid reasons from removing content that otherwise meets WP:V and WP:DUEWEIGHT, and has consensus for inclusion.- Mr X 🖋 18:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the consensus qualifier, MrX. My reason for providing the wikilink to RECENTISM was because, as most will notice, it is an explanatory supplement to WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:NOT policies, any one of which may provide valid reasons for removal of content that do not meet policy requirements. Perhaps more solid arguments for removal can be found in the sub-articles of former presidents. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ultimately many article particularly on politicians will be large if we include every single thing that blew up at one time. We cannot, do not and should not include every such things but need to keep stuff which are most relevant. We can use RS to help use determine such. For example, if almost no RS mention the thing after 6 months, then it's likely not of great relevance. And if you accept that consensus is required to keep every single thing that blew up at one time, even if everyone has forgotten about them in 6 months, then you accept that me saying that I do not believe that we should be including such things is one sign there may be no consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trump's well-documented obsession with race has already had far-reaching consequences, not least changing the political landscape domestically, and significantly damaging the international profile of the country. zzz (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that was possibly planned (just one of many refs). Stirring up racial tensions in the United States has been always a part of Active_measures#Against_the_United_States. My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this appears to be the only article on Wikipedia with a title Racial views of ... Faolin42 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and that is a valid reason for deletion because? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can start with the fact that this article is not about the views of Trump rather it is about the views of his detractors who consider Trump a racist based on what they believe is racism. Those opinions have been published in biased news sources by journalists who are part of the 90% who have been writing mostly negative articles about Trump, most apparently for political reasons, which is why we should more closely follow the guidelines in WP:NEWSORG. I've already provided the applicable policies that I believe warrants a Speedy Delete of this article per WP:ATTACK, although some don't interpret those policies or this article the same way. There is no question that Trump is disliked by many in MSM and there is undeniably a concerted effort to "resist" by Trump's political opposition. I and others have noticed some keep comments that appear more like attempts to right great wrongs. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this appears to be the only article on Wikipedia with a title Racial views of ... Yes, because this is the only case in recent history when things like that became so significant nationally and internationally to receive very wide coverage in sources. Journalists do not just publish accusations. They report on the subject, at least for as long as they publish in reputable newspapers. And there is a strong and broad consensus of sources published in many countries on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MVBW, when you get a chance, read the following reports about today's journalism as reported by journalists:National Review, The Guardian, USA Today. Enjoy! ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not telling that every single publication must be trusted (of course not) and that there is no bias in media. But speaking of opinions, everyone has an opinion, and this is good. What matters is not "neutrality" of an author but his or her expertise. Actually, a personal opinion by an expert is highly valuable. That has been recognized long time ago in natural sciences. Hence we have the large series of scientific review journals in Current Opinion (Elsevier). And remember that all notable opinions/views should be reflected per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Gandydancer.– Gilliam (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gilliam, that's really nice of you. But you know what, even as I wrote "watershed moment" I cringed and knew it most likely was not as he's had just one rock bottom moment after the other and I see no end in sight. This incident will fade just like all the others. All the more reason for the importance of this article - even if the best we can do is to just document them. Gandydancer (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this topic is extensively covered in multiples and multiples of reliable sources. Wikipedia articles report only what reliable sources say. Sometimes controversial topics are covered on Wikipedia as a result. This is one of those, while satisfying WP:NPOV, WP:NRV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Guys (and gals [and gender-nonconforming individuals]), let me just say: bludgeoning doesn't get any less annoying when it's coming from multiple people. Almost every "delete" !vote has a response, and that's entirely unnecessary. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 08:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may have said delete a few weeks ago. But, how long can we ignore the subject while being hit in the face with incident after incident? If editors see any BIASED, NPOV or BLP problems, then go fix them instead of deleting the article. O3000 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm certain we don't have an article called Racial views of Andrew Johnson. Johnson being the most racist US President in American history. We also don't have such articles on all the slave-owning US Presidents, either. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See: [81] O3000 (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But they're not separate articles, called Racial views of George Washington or Racial views of Zachary Taylor, etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is George_Washington_and_slavery but it isn't very comparable; but more importantly WP:OSE Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Race still refers to one's color, not one's ethnicity, so calling someone a racist using ethnicity, nationality, or religious ideology as the basis for racism is inaccurate, and may contribute to some of the editorial disagreements in this article. Also, comparing the prevalent views of prior centuries to the 21st Century is an apples to oranges comparison, because morality and humanity have consistently evolved. Women (all races) are no longer considered chattel in most countries. Slavery (all races) has been abolished, or at least it's considered "illegal" in most countries, but the world is still dealing with human trafficking (slavery indiscriminate of race). ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Race still refers to one's color, not one's ethnicity. See the first paragraph of Racism. O3000 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Person of color, Color terminology for race and The Guardian's reference to "woman of color", NPR: The Journey from Colored-to-Minorities-to-People of Color, Trump's past comments on people of color (notice the cherrypicked segments and how they are edited). If it wasn't about color, the MSM wouldn't still be saying white racists or white supremacists. It appears the Racism article may need tweaking. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our "racism" page get it right. For example, it is generally accepted that race "theory" of Nazi was racism, but it had little to do with the color of skin. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll believe it when I see complete elimination of the terms "Race:" on census forms/applications/government docs, and the distinction between "black" and "white" is totally removed. Until then, that WP page is just another theory and a disputed one according to the way race is judged in RL and by certain governments - this is not the place for me to argue with you about yet another article with issues. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously you can find a lot of articles that mention both race and color. Color usually suggests race. That doesn’t mean race is limited to color. O3000 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue I see overall - article and in this debate - is the relentless attempt to conflate racism with bigotry - it's like trying to fit a square peg fit in a round hole. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The only arguments I'm seeing against the article are on POV grounds. Since NPOV isn't a reason to delete, the claim that it's a biased article is either IDONTLIKEIT or POVFORK. I don't buy that it's a POV fork. Donald Trump receives a lot of media attention as a quick look at Template:Donald Trump will show. The general practice is that when one aspect of his life gets too much attention for the main article, per WP:SPINOFF, we create a new article to deal with that. That's what happened here. That it happens to be an aspect of his life that reflects poorly upon him is not reason to delete. Creating a new article is appropriate, and it's standard practice. -- irn (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a defining characteristic of his campaign and of his presidency, and there are literally thousands of article from reliable sources dedicated to it. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on "This article is POV!" which, as VolunteerMarek pointed out above, is not a reason for deletion; in any case, I read the article and I find it to be remarkably even-handed, maybe even to the point of glossing over how divisive some of Trump's statement related to race have been. Anyway, my point is that most of the delete votes are just "I don't like an article that calls attention to Trump's racial views, because deep down I know they're bad but I like Trump." Nufy7 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 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 have been enough input. Closing now and will conduct history split to revert hijack vandalism. Alex Shih (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authority Nutrition[edit]

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

Non-notable company. I declined the G11 because I didn't think it met that criterion, but I agree that it should not be in Wikipedia, and am taking it to AfD instead. None of the sourcing amounts to notability under our cirteria, and the article was likely created with the intent to promote the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and a very large trout to TonyBallioni for making editors deal with this move vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to me to be a plain vanilla WP:WEB failure: I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the website. Adam9007 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable website. This is not the place for quibbling about the process. Come on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to demonstrate notability. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 03:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move the first three revisions over H&I to restore the original history of that page. (The current history of that page should be deleted.) Leave the remaining revisions deleted at this title (per above delete !votes). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N/WP:WEB/WP:SPAM failure; it's an average clickbait site among many. Also don't bother with the H&I revision move; this was a WP:SPA hijacking by Patel the empty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pure and simple, and why we let this go two years beyond their block is surprising. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 15 January 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. ansh 666 05:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teodor von Burg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Von Burg is categorized here as a mathematician. If so, then he must have a list of profound and recognized contributions to mathematics. As far as I see, he entered Exeter College undergraduate studies in 2012 but there is no information whether he finished it, no knowledge about distinction or recognitions particular to his study.

No one is a notable mathematician for just being successful at secondary school math level competitions.

His success at IMO is not correctly valued. Von Borg never won the first place. The highest one was the third place in 2010. So, if we give gold medal to the competition winner, the silver to the runner up, then this student would have no more than a single bronze medal in five runs. The criterion to win gold was to get no less than 30 out of 42 points. The real IMO competition star was Ciprian Manolescu, who participated 3 times, and every time he scored perfect 42 points (already noticed by Arimakat).

All those awards are no more than local moral incentives given to a promising student.

Strong delete nom --BTZorbas (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: the above bulleted !vote has been added by nominator in direct contravention of WP:AFDFORMAT. --Lambiam 19:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

neutral - I'm not sure that doing well on that hellish dissection isn't notable. I notice that there's nothing on the page since 2012. Nor is there anything I can find about him at a glance. Chances are though, that he'll be producing papers soon, and there aren't that many people in Category:Serbian mathematicians ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I do not see what makes him notable. CLCStudent (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article should be kept because it meets the requirements of policy. According to IMO's official website he has won four gold medals at the International Mathematical Olympiad, which is the mathematics field most important world event, widely described as the "most prestigious mathematical competitions in the world" and vaguely equal to the Olympics, which is why it's called an Olympiad. He was also won a silver medal and a bronze medal. All these medals can be verified. He is also second in the hall of fame, making him the IMO's second most successful participant ever. A short google search also shows many people describing him as the most successful IMO participant ever, although this is not quite accurate. But then the nominators comments are not accurate either, a gold medal is a gold medal. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also I will point out that this article was put forward to be deleted before and kept, and the points made then are still valid. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Ilyina Olya Yakovna My statements are verifiable, therefore accurate. My main point "No one is a notable mathematician for just being successful at secondary school math level competitions." holds.--BTZorbas (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However describing gold medals from what is widely described as one of the worlds most prestigious mathematics competitions as "local moral incentives given to a promising student" is not the finest example of an accurate statement. Nor is your hypothetical analogy about the medals particularly helpful since I got totally confused and thought you were saying something completely different. Also I think it is unfair to say that he is no longer notable because he is now the second most successful participant at the International Mathematical Olympiad, which is the main reason for deletion, since it was clearly decided to keep the article when he was the most successful participant. This being according to the International Mathematical Olympiad's own rankings, and not your own undisclosed personal ranking of what a notable mathematician is. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Ilyina Olya YakovnaPlease, stop distorting my statements. I said "All those awards are no more than local moral incentives given to a promising student." Search for the "award" word in the biography. Medals are not awards nor I ever equate these two things.--BTZorbas (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the English language the word "medal" is a synonym of "award" with near identical meaning.^[82][83][84] You should have specified what awards you were talking about rather than vaguely stating "those awards" as you did not mention any awards other than his gold medals in what you wrote. English is not my first language but I feel you have written your comment in a most unclear way and without saying why exactly Teodor von Burg is not notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Ilyina Olya Yakovna Please, stop talking nonsense. English language, as any spoken language, is context dependent. I've used these two words ("medal", "award") exclusively in the biography context. The other two users who commented my proposal did not find anything wrong with the proposal.--BTZorbas (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my complaint, you don't give any context, you just write about his IMO medals then make a random comment about awards and expect everyone to know what you mean.

But to break it down. He has:

4 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze medals at the International Mathematical Olympiad.
3 gold, 3 silver medals at the Balkan Mathematical Olympiad.
2 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze medals at the Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad.
He is the most successful ever competitor of the Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad.
He is the second most successful ever competitor of the International Mathematical Olympiad. (first place for 3 years).
Record youngest competitor of the Junior Balkan Mathematical Olympiad, Balkan Mathematical Olympiad and International Mathematical Olympiad.
He has taken part in 57 other mathematical competitions, with: 44 first, 11 second, and 2 third prizes.
Saint Sava Award, for his contribution and commitment in the field of education.
He was awarded the Charter of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Karić Brothers Award, in the field of scientific and research work.
By my count, ten reliable sources in the article/identified.
Another six or so non-English sources, being news reports and biographies that no one has included.
A great many of mentions, mostly saying how he is the world's best young mathematician.

So really my point is why do you think this is not good enough? What possible reason to delete this article is there? It is very clear to me that he is notable according to your policy entitled WP:GNG and the other policy called WP:BIO which says the same. You are just hiding the facts behind vagueness that cannot be understood and pretending your concept of who is a notable mathematician is relevant when the policy clearly disagrees with you. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Being a student competitor in math is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not by itself, but what about being a world-class competitor in the most renowned international maths competition in conjunction with having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Having written a book is also not a sign of notability, but that is not a particularly good reason for deleting Lemony Snicket. --Lambiam 11:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam The most renowned international SECONDARY SCHOOL maths LEVEL competition? Right? That competition is certainly a notable event, but neither of the competitors is a notable mathematician. Right?--BTZorbas (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTZorbas, I think you are confusing what is a notable person according to the policy with your opinion of what is a notable mathematician according to an external guide designed for adults, probably professors at that. There is no policy specially for mathematician's on Wikipedia, I have looked very carefully. Also for Wikipedia notability it does not matter that he is not an adult because his achievements are out of the ordinary. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So far as I can see his work is cited by nobody. Not a single citation on GS. Fails WP:Prof and WP:GNG, nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

It worries me that you cannot see.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33]^[34]^[35]^[36]^[37] There is much more, try searching for Teodor fon Burg (16,400 results) and Teodor von Burg (52,500 results). Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
References ^ "International Mathematical Olympiad Hall of Fame 2012". Imo-official.org. Retrieved 2012-08-02. ^ "Serbian youth world's best young mathematician". B92. 2012-07-16. Archived from the original on 2014-02-03. ^ Gorica Avalić (2012-07-16), Teodor fon Burg najbolji mladi matematičar u istoriji, a strah ga da je razočarao profesora (in Serbian), Blic. ^ Sećanje na svetog Savu (in Serbian), Radio Television of Serbia, 2011-04-27. ^ "Svečani sastanak Odeljenja za matematiku, 14. septembar 2012. - Univerzitet u Beogradu Matematicki fakultet". www.matf.bg.ac.rs. ^ "Uručene nagrade "Braća Karić"". Mondo Portal (in Serbian (Latin script)). Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ http://www.tanjug.rs/news/50923/teodor-fon-burg-worlds-best-young-mathematician.htm. Retrieved 16 January 2018. `((cite web))`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help) ^ "YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Povelja SANU-a Teodoru fon Burgu2.flv". 14 September 2012. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/murc/txt/mins/2012MT1.pdf. Retrieved 16 January 2018. `((cite web))`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help) ^ Gronau, Hans-Dietrich; Langmann, Hanns-Heinrich; Schleicher, Dierk (2011). 50th IMO - 50 Years of International Mathematical Olympiads. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9783642145650. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ http://www.imomath.com/index.php?mod=20&imetakm=Teodor%20von%20Burg. Retrieved 16 January 2018. `((cite web))`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help) ^ "Kako preživeti kao (zaista) siromašan student u Srbiji (a da nisi Teodor von Burg) - Tarzanija". Tarzanija. 21 May 2015. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Maths gurus go for gold in Mother City \| IOL Business Report". Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Teodor Von Burg - Lična Inicijativa Moj heroj 2017". Lična Inicijativa Moj heroj 2017 (in Serbian). 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ https://www.blic.rs/drustvo.php?id=81805. Retrieved 16 January 2018. `((cite web))`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help) ^ "Laureates, The \'Karic Brothers\' Award Laureates in 2012". www.karicawards.com. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Teodor fon Burg: I rivali su mi skinuli kapu". www.novosti.rs (in Serbian (Latin script)). Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Vesti online / Vesti / Srbija / Teodor fon Burg: Niko ne radi sa mladim talentima". www.vesti-online.com. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Математичка гимназија - школа од посебног националног интереса". www.mg.edu.rs. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "49th International Mathematical Olympiad, Spain 2008". www.imo-2008.es. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ ""Teodor fon Burg je budući Tesla" - Život". B92.net (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Deseti na Olimpijadi". Blic.rs (in Serbian). 29 November 2015. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Serbia's Maths Victors \| NIS". NIS. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Теодор фон Бург". Википедија, слободна енциклопедија (in Serbian). 22 December 2017. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Teodor fon Burg najbolji mladi matematičar u istoriji, a strah ga da je razočarao profesora". Blic.rs (in Serbian). 28 November 2015. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/aktuelno.293.html:357181-Teodor-fon-Burg-odlazi-na-Oksford. Retrieved 16 January 2018. `((cite web))`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help) ^ "Teodor fon Burg nije najbolji na svetu!". kurir.rs (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ Симић-Миладиновић, Миленија. "Теодор фон Бург: Чека ме одлична математичка каријера". Politika Online (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Teodor fon Burg: "Najbolji takmičar ikada" je samo titula". www.telegraf.rs (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Teodor fon Burg, little math genius, the best in Serbia for the last 50 years". www.ekapija.com. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=1063242. Retrieved 16 January 2018. `((cite web))`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help) ^ "Teodor fon Burg nije uspeo da izračuna potrošačku korpu u Srbiji". Njuz.net (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ Simić-Miladinović, Milenija. "Teodor fon Burg: Čeka me odlična matematička karijera". Politika Online (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Teodor fon Burg: Najbolji mladi matematičar svih vremena! Rekli su o njemu". Bašta Balkana Magazin (in Serbian). 16 July 2012. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ "Teodor fon Burg o pravdi - Bizlife.rs". Bizlife.rs (in Serbian). 12 December 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ^ http://srb.imomath.com/index.php?options=257&lmm=0. Retrieved 16 January 2018. `((cite web))`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help)

Extended content

References

^ "International Mathematical Olympiad Hall of Fame 2012". Imo-official.org. Retrieved 2012-08-02.
^ "Serbian youth world's best young mathematician". B92. 2012-07-16. Archived from the original on 2014-02-03.
^ Gorica Avalić (2012-07-16), Teodor fon Burg najbolji mladi matematičar u istoriji, a strah ga da je razočarao profesora (in Serbian), Blic.
^ Sećanje na svetog Savu (in Serbian), Radio Television of Serbia, 2011-04-27.
^ "Svečani sastanak Odeljenja za matematiku, 14. septembar 2012. - Univerzitet u Beogradu Matematicki fakultet". www.matf.bg.ac.rs.
^ "Uručene nagrade "Braća Karić"". Mondo Portal (in Serbian (Latin script)). Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ http://www.tanjug.rs/news/50923/teodor-fon-burg-worlds-best-young-mathematician.htm. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Povelja SANU-a Teodoru fon Burgu2.flv". 14 September 2012. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/murc/txt/mins/2012MT1.pdf. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Gronau, Hans-Dietrich; Langmann, Hanns-Heinrich; Schleicher, Dierk (2011). 50th IMO - 50 Years of International Mathematical Olympiads. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9783642145650. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ http://www.imomath.com/index.php?mod=20&imetakm=Teodor%20von%20Burg. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Kako preživeti kao (zaista) siromašan student u Srbiji (a da nisi Teodor von Burg) - Tarzanija". Tarzanija. 21 May 2015. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Maths gurus go for gold in Mother City | IOL Business Report". Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Teodor Von Burg - Lična Inicijativa Moj heroj 2017". Lična Inicijativa Moj heroj 2017 (in Serbian). 21 January 2014. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ https://www.blic.rs/drustvo.php?id=81805. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Laureates, The \'Karic Brothers\' Award Laureates in 2012". www.karicawards.com. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Teodor fon Burg: I rivali su mi skinuli kapu". www.novosti.rs (in Serbian (Latin script)). Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Vesti online / Vesti / Srbija / Teodor fon Burg: Niko ne radi sa mladim talentima". www.vesti-online.com. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Математичка гимназија - школа од посебног националног интереса". www.mg.edu.rs. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "49th International Mathematical Olympiad, Spain 2008". www.imo-2008.es. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ ""Teodor fon Burg je budući Tesla" - Život". B92.net (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Deseti na Olimpijadi". Blic.rs (in Serbian). 29 November 2015. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Serbia's Maths Victors | NIS". NIS. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Теодор фон Бург". Википедија, слободна енциклопедија (in Serbian). 22 December 2017. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Teodor fon Burg najbolji mladi matematičar u istoriji, a strah ga da je razočarao profesora". Blic.rs (in Serbian). 28 November 2015. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/aktuelno.293.html:357181-Teodor-fon-Burg-odlazi-na-Oksford. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Teodor fon Burg nije najbolji na svetu!". kurir.rs (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ Симић-Миладиновић, Миленија. "Теодор фон Бург: Чека ме одлична математичка каријера". Politika Online (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Teodor fon Burg: "Najbolji takmičar ikada" je samo titula". www.telegraf.rs (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Teodor fon Burg, little math genius, the best in Serbia for the last 50 years". www.ekapija.com. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=1063242. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Teodor fon Burg nije uspeo da izračuna potrošačku korpu u Srbiji". Njuz.net (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ Simić-Miladinović, Milenija. "Teodor fon Burg: Čeka me odlična matematička karijera". Politika Online (in Serbian). Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Teodor fon Burg: Najbolji mladi matematičar svih vremena! Rekli su o njemu". Bašta Balkana Magazin (in Serbian). 16 July 2012. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ "Teodor fon Burg o pravdi - Bizlife.rs". Bizlife.rs (in Serbian). 12 December 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
^ http://srb.imomath.com/index.php?options=257&lmm=0. Retrieved 16 January 2018. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)

You might like to look at this essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

You might want to actually read WP:NPROF. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that and contributed to several of its archived talk pages. What should I be looking for? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Well the WP:NPROF policy says it only applies to academics/professors and this person is not an academic and has never worked as one, certainly not as a professor. Then you say that the article "Fails WP:Prof, nothing else.". Yet in the WP:NPROF policy it clearly says:

From WP:NPROF.
This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.[1] It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines.

Therefore your recommendation to delete, based on the fact that this article fails an optional policy which does not apply to the article seems really strange to me. Because if the article fails nothing else as you say that should be a reason to keep. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilyina Olya Yakovna Could you, please, refrain from further distortions of other people comments and Wikipedia rules misinterpretations? The guideline segment you quoted above talks about notability of AN ACADEMIC NOT ABOUT A SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENT NOTABILITY!--BTZorbas (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I am saying. What part of,

Delete. So far as I can see his work is cited by nobody. Not a single citation on GS. Fails WP:Prof, nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

has any basis in policy or any relevance to this person whatsoever? Sorry for being a perfectionist. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, because this is confounding the (possibly already questionable) values of undergraduate contests and their notability, like some Olympics or Olympiads (a misconception of meaning as a contest per se), themselves and the notability of their "medalists", who still have to show their notability on the job. (Does "least non-notable" exist, and is a notable property therefore?) Purgy (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)′[reply]
Weak keep (!vote altered per TimTempleton - cultural differences) WP:GNG doesn't require that editors spend time analyzing if somebody is important or not. It simply requires we find if enough coverage in independent reliable sources exists. It undoubtedly does, therefore specific sub guidelines from WP:BIO or others are mostly irrelevant - they are there to help make a decision but shouldn't be abused to delete something simply because one has never heard of it or because subject doesn't meet one specific sub-criteria which might not even apply. If this were the one-time winner of some competition, then yes delete per WP:BLP1E. However, article subject has received sustained coverage for multiple events and, per WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." - The 'Charter of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts', if not the gold medals (which I agree are probably not that important), is clearly such an significant award, being awarded by a national level institution. Judging the intent behind the award is WP:OR and does not render the award moot. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ilyina Olya Yakovna alias 198.84.253.202 Yet another misinterpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines from the same person. WP:ANYBIO states:
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
Von Burg is categorized as a mathematician. If so, then where is the list of his contributions "in his specific field"? I found none.--BTZorbas (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pings don't work for IPs.WP:ANYBIO states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included [emphasis mine]" - there is no requirement to meet all conditions. Of course, it is possible that a subject meets the criteria and is yet not notable, however given the repeated coverage in RS I don't think that is the case here. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTZorbas, what are you talking about? This person has made a massive impact to Serbian mathematics, he is the best known junior mathematics competitor of his generation. This is explained many times in ten national newspapers over several years. And there is no doubt this will remain on the historical record for some time, especially if he goes on to do mathematics after graduation, because it is an achievement that is out of the ordinary. I seriously doubt you are doing anything but trying to hold up your nomination now, seriously there is no shame in making the article better rather than deleting it. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTZorbas, what do you base your accusation on that 198.84.253.202 and Ilyina Olya Yakovna are the same editor? Merely on the fact that they agree on this issue? You cannot wildly fling accusations around without specific evidential basis. --Lambiam 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional delete~~. First, let's clarify some things. He certainly doesn't pass WP:PROF, but that's irrelevant if he passes WP:GNG. The nomination says that he's listed as a mathematician but is not notable as a mathematician, but again, this is not an argument for deletion (at most, it might be an argument for removal from mathematician categories).
But does he pass GNG? At a cursory look, I really don't think so. The hits that are being adduced as evidence seem mainly to be what you would call "passing mentions" (e.g., a listing in a table of competition winners). To support notability, you'd need the source to say, at a minimum, something beyond the fact that he won. I don't think we want to establish a regime of presumptive notability just for winning math contests, even prestigious ones.
I said "provisional" because I could certainly have missed some more meaty coverage in the sea of trivial hits. If that's the case, the defenders should narrow down the refs being adduced as evidence and point us to the strongest ones. Also, this is a case where he may not be notable now, but there's a strong possibility he'll become notable in the future, and the deletion should carry no prejudice against re-creation in that case. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- link Article with in depth coverage from Serbian news station B92.
- link Extended in depth coverage for when Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic congratulated Teodor von Burg on one of his gold medals. Source is from mid-market Serbian newspaper Blic.
- link An in depth article about Teodor von Burg receiving a scholarship to study at Oxford University after his acclaimed Olympiad successes. Source is from the Serbian newspaper Večernje novosti.
- link Article in Basta Balkana magazine.
- link another article from Večernje novosti.

@Trovatore: I show these articles so that it is easier for you and you don't need to look at all the links or search on Google, where there is more, although it is mostly more of the same, but from different sources. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. 19 is an interview and No. 26 seems to contain some biographical data - that seems to satisfy the criteria. A good number are indeed simply lists of winners. Agree with the remark against prejudice in case this gets deleted (though one must take care not to get into WP:CRYSTAL territory, unlike Ilyina above). WP seems to have also a lacking coverage of subjects which are not British or American (Battle of Charleroi is an example I'm working on - compare with the excellent coverage on closely related Battle of Mons which involves British troops). As I said above, subject also meets criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO for winning a nationally prestigious award. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my !vote. It does look like there are sources with more than trivial mentions (note to User:Ильина Оля Яковна: sometimes less is more — if you had started with those, rather than spamming in tens of trivial hits, it would have been more convincing from the start). As to whether the sources are "reliable", I don't have any reason to think they're not, but I also have no familiarity with them. So I'll abstain for now. --Trovatore (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of substantive independent sources that are actually about the subject - unsurprising given his age. WP:TOOSOON, at best. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per that linked page, "WP:ANYBIO allows that ANY individual, actors included, may be presumed notable if 'the person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times'," which article subject did receive. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, even listing 5 articles that are only about this person, people still pay no attention and say it should be deleted, it seems Wikipedia is biased against young people. I will not watch this page now. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP isn't biased against anything - editors are (Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage). Again, as I said above, coverage of a sourced topic shouldn't be deleted simply because it is something distant to most editors. The sad thing about discussions is that people don't always take the time to read every comment, often making summary judgements with little basis in either sources or policy (often misunderstood). If it was just me, I'd say ignore WP:GNG when it prevents you adding a good article about something, and this is a case were WP:IAR should apply even if there are more persons who say "delete" (ignoring this isn't a vote and that restatement of the same opinion isn't an argument). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no claim of notability other than his performance at high-school level competitions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re above "national level award" + non-trivial mention in RS 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I went to his Serbian Wikipedia page [[85]], to see what kind of sourcing there was, since the limited sourcing for this English article and a Google search in English clearly point to a delete. I don't read Serbian, but was able to identify four news articles from Serbian publications, of which three were just about him. Amidst a handful of dead links, the rest are announcements about the math olympiad tournament and promotional fliers. That's just not quite enough, especially when you consider how because of cultural differences, this news would be of much more interest to Serbian media than to the US. (Anyone here know that the US was one of two teams ever to get perfect team scores at the Olympiad? Me neither. Fails WP:GNG. Probably also WP:TOOSOON, since there's no current scholarly news coming from Oxford, but that may change and this can be revisited. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON: the subject is not yet notable per review of available sources. High-school level competitions are an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the subject is not claimed to be notable as an academic - and other claims to notability include national level awards which meet WP:ANYBIO (and judging the intent behind has no basis in any policy). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pseudo-biography that may be TOOSOON. Birthdate/place and nothing else--------fast forward------mathematics student that won several awards----fast forward----- nothing since 2012. Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 22 January 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.