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. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Mater[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 4 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. Sources were provided to meet GNG and not disputed, so even though it's a borderline NACTOR case, that doesn't matter. ansh666 09:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Robinson (Actor)[edit]

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

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

Repeatedly recreated page. Original page Samuel Robinson (actor) title locked and administrator can create it. so it would be WP:G7 Nomination. -- HindWiki^Connect 22:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC) — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 18:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still fails WP:NACTOR. Significant coverage not found. I have tried to tag the article for speedy deletion under G4, but the CSD nomination was declined by Ivanvector. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note pinging The Bushranger to comment on why Samuel Robinson (actor) was create-protected eight months after it was last recreated in April 2017. As for this page, the recreated article is significantly changed from any of the deleted versions and notes more recent developments in the actor's career, thus although the standard for inclusion may still not be met, WP:G4 does not apply as this is not an obvious case. I don't understand the nominator's rationale for WP:G7: the creator has not requested deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector:: The protection was added on account of this ANI thread. Basically there was "name-gaming" by a COI/promotional editor who was trying to get the article to "stick" by recreating it under at least five different titles (the four mentioned there plus Samuel Robinson (Nigerian actor)), the most recent being 12 December of last year; the result of that was a mass-salting of all the known titles used. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Bushranger: I see. Well, you missed one ;) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nomination is an unconvincing argument for deletion. The article was last deleted 9 months ago based primarily on arguments of quality and the author's behaviour (both arguments to avoid) and poor sourcing, with several delete !votes from users who it has since been discovered were sockpuppets. There have been developments in the actor's career in the meantime and better sources have been provided which are in-depth reports on the actor, not just passing mentions in articles about things he's been in, for example dailypost.ng and Deccan Chronicle. This is enough for WP:GNG. For WP:NACTOR, he has over several years had a handful of significant (not leading, but not apparently minor) roles in several bluelinked productions, such as Green White Green (which screened at TIFF) and Desperate Housewives Africa in which he is described as main cast. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, then perhaps the article should be moved to Samuel Robinson (actor). WP:DRV may not be necessary for this. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I figured that would be automatic. I presume The Bushranger would be fine with that, if this is kept. Conversely if this is not kept then the title should be salted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it, presuming it passes the deletion for actually being notable and, finally, non-promotional. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article subject still fails WP:NACTOR, specificily the criteria: Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The article as it stands suffers from the same flaws that resulted in it being deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samuel_Robinson_(actor).--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject of this article is very notable in India. As an Actor, he has received much acclaim in his country and in India. -AhamBrahmasmi (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP This is an article about a Nigerian Actor who has received national and international acclaim. He is also in an award winning film that screened at Tiff Green White Green (at TIFF). This satisfies WP:NACTOR. Am i missing something obvious? IgorGunther (talk)14:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)— IgorGunther (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note that User:IgorGunther has now been indeffed as a sock account of User:Sam3346, who created several of the articles about Robinson.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote struck. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although overzealousness of previous version creators and socking tainted this article; there's evidence the subject passes WP:GNG by having been recognized actor in two countries, receiving coverage from multiple sources and at the same time passes WP:NACTOR for having acted in multiple notable movies in these countries as well as been in the news both in India and in Nigeria (as below sources will show). Moreover, careful analysis of the previous AfDs will bare the weakness of the delete !voters who failed to address the sources the sock provided. Had it been written by exprienced editor in good standing, it is clear the previous "delete not notable" votes cannot win over him. The same thing here, nobody is countering sources provided by Ivanvector, in addition to [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and add to those already in the article.. It is also noteworthy almost all the films where he acted have their own wikipedia articles, and it needs no repeating, movies more often than not, get their notability from the people who acted in them not otherwise. I am the one also who opened the SPI which lead to blocking of the above sock, but the Check user confirmed the creator of this version has no relation to previous to this sock or all previous ones–hence not blocked. Also Admin Ivanvector above confirmed this version is different from the previous one. Finally there's no convincing, evidenced-based, policy-backed deletion rationale. The only vague reason is that is recreated which is ironically opposite to what policy say. It is within policy to recreate previously deleted article once the subject reach higher status or achievement, and to repeat myself; Check user confirmed the creator of this version is unrelated to the sock, not only on one occasion but on two different SPI investigations: First SPI here closed by Bbb23 and second SPI here closed by the same Check user. ^{Note: After I wrote this, the two cases where merged into one, so these links will now lead to the same case page.} . –Ammarpad (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Weak Delete: Based on my personal standard (which is obviously inspired from Wikipedia guidelines), all things being equal, I need an actor to have have had main roles in at least three films/series before being automatically eligible to pass the specific notability guidelines for actors. I will analyze the filmography of Samuel Robinson below:

• 8 Bars & A Clef - not a major role, he played a younger version of a main cast.
• Green White Green - major role (1)
• Sudani from Nigeria - not yet released
• Tinsel (TV series) - Has a lot of ensemble cast. Samuel Robinson will not be in my top 20 actors that have starred in it based on the relevance of their roles to the series. I am a strong fan of this series btw.
• Shuga Naija - not a main/major or even significant cast. this can't be counted as having the slightest ability to confer notability on him.
• Desperate Housewives Africa - main role (2) He had a minor role in the series, the regular editor that created the article didn't even include him as a cast-member. It was this same Sam3346 that added him as a main cast. Information online that included the main cast of the series didn't even mention his name 1, 2. This man is all out to promote himself, he even commented on the BellaNaija reference.
• The Middleman - information online does not signify that he was a main cast. imdb alone is not sufficient.
• The Governor - far from being a main cast in this series
• Playing Victim - far from being a main cast in this film

From the above, he needs a main role in two more films to meet my standard (gotten from the text from WP:NACTOR, which says an actor must have "main roles in multiple notable films"). I am also irritated by the persistence displayed by the article creators, they are trying to show that they can do what they like here and get away with it. If he had gotten nominated for some of the numerous film awards in Nigeria, I would have used that to support his filmography then vote weak keep, but presently I see this as a case of WP:TOOSOON, since he's even just 18 years old. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello @HandsomeBoy I am also a Nigerian. This Actor played the Governor's Son Toju on a TV show about the dynamics of a family's relationship while handling Politics, called The Governor. The company which produced the show (Ebony Life Tv) listed him as a Main Character in the series on their website ebony lifetime.com/the-governor. I was a big fan of the show. 2,He played Tekena in Playing Victim, a movie about a boy who reunited with his estranged dad (Femi Branch) on the internet. He was the main key Character in this movie, Though there is little or no online press about it, it was televised and still is, on Africa Magic; a popular Nigerian Channel. In Desperate Housewives Africa,which is the African adaptation of the Popular American Show Desperate Housewives, he played Akin Bello who is the African equivalent of Zach Young on the American Version. Zach Young is listed as a significant Character in the series as there are several important storylines centered around his character. I stumbled upon this discussion when I was researching the Actor for an interview and saw Page issues on an article about him here. I probably should add that this actor is also verified on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter who deemed him notable enough. Facebook.com/samuelabiolarobinson Instagram.com/samuelabiolarobinson

Twitter.com/samuelrobinsonx

This is just my opinion; That he is 18years old or not should not be the basis of judging his notability or lack thereof. He has made significant contributions to the Nigerian film Industry and other Industries Abroad apparently. Judging this based on age is unfair and regressive.

I am not a Wikipedia person, I may have Google tips on how to edit this page and my opinion may not matter much here but I understand the condescension of judging an acclaimed person by age because it's similar to playing my achievements down as a woman. I do not think it is too soon for this article as there are several other articles that do not meet half the validity of this one and are not considered too soon to be on Wikipedia. See Jemima Osunde, Lola Margaret, Shannon George to mention a few. This is my opinion. I mean no disrespect to anyone. Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.3.246 (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah (ip user) My mentioning his age was not to belittle his achievement but to demonstrate that his career in Nollywood was still fairly new. Additionally, social media verification counts for nothing in assessing notability. There are many Nigerians with large followings verified on Facebook, Twitter and IG; who aren't notable for inclusion on WP. Furthermore, word-of-mouth means little on Wikipedia, especially not from an ip user. I provided independent links that contains information on the main cast on all the films and series he had acted in; the way to counter my argument is to provide opposing references that contains his name as a lead cast-member. You can't just say he was a main cast, and expect everyone to believe you. Considering the level of sockpuppetry associated with this actor, I find it difficult to believe you had no pre-knowledge to this discussion.

Before participating in any AFD, especially one that I want to vote delete, I do a considerable about of research, and I am generally consider myself an inclusionist for Nollywood articles. Let me also add that as an editor that is very sensitive to systematic bias, this only applies for Nigerian actors/films that were released/active before 2010s. Samuel started his career in year 2013, so if he was a notable actor already, there will be several coverage to show that he has starred in lead roles in multiple films.

Concerning The Governor, all the independent sources that cover the series do not mention his name at all. See 1,2. On the primary website, this is empty; this gave a brief description of all actors that acted in the series, but nothing to show significant. At best, he's just a promising young actor. Even if I am to include this series as him having a lead role in it (which is false from the independent souces that didn't even mention his name), it will make it just two; still doesn't meet my standard of 3 films. My votes are based on WP:NACTOR, I haven't looked at WP:GNG, but I doubt he will have gotten significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If you want to counter any of my claim on lead roles, please reply me with references on the film/series that mentions his name.

Finally, if you think there are existing articles that does not meet the notability guidelines for actors, feel free to nominate for deletion. But remember to review WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG before taking that step.

• Comment I've restored the G4 tag as this current version is not too different from this, and was deleted and salted from creation only two moths ago. I will have to agree with darreg that this guy is not notable yet. This can be userfied to darreg's HandsomeBoy's page (if he want's) as he's an expert in creating articles about Nigerian actors/actress and I trust would not have a problem doing justice to this when the subject becomes notable. I also suggest that all articles salted to be reduced to EC creation as he's on the verge of notability and all previous creators were not EC. This would reduce the burden on future appropriate creation. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted up the thread, I declined speedy deletion because the recreation is not substantially similar to the deleted article. Please don't add the tag back again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I'm basing my vote on the fact that according to this article he's the first black actor to co-star in an Indian film. Indian bias against dark skin is well known. However, since it's not out yet, it's WP:TOOSOON. But, if this is deleted, it will be salted; hence, a weak vote to preserve this until the film's release. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:24, 12 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) 19:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics – Men's statistics[edit]

Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics – Men's statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Found in the underlinked backlog. This article dates from 2006 when sports inclusion guidelines were in a very different state. It contains essentially no prose at all and is entirely unreferenced. WP:NSEASONS says that articles should be "mainly [composed] of well-sourced prose"; as this articlec ontains neither sources nor prose it doesn't meet the standard. There is already an article (with an unusual hyphenated title) over here, and the highly specific title makes it a poor redirect candidate.

The article also falls afoul of WP:NOTDIR -- this is all data that can and does live more happily elsewhere. A Train^talk 21:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(contribs · mail)} 22:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(contribs · mail)} 22:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(contribs · mail)} 22:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Flibirigit (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classic case of WP:NOTSTATS. There's also the same article for the women's tournament too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE I put a PROD on the corresponding Women's article. Flibirigit (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A classic case of WP:NOTSTATS and we can add the Women's statistics from the same Winter Olympics in that category. Matt294069 is coming 00:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No prose and no significant independent coverage. The same can be said of the women's article. WP:NOTSTATS clearly applies. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – A classic case of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTSTATS. No prose apart from the lead. Take the woman's as well. J947 ^{(contribs · mail)} 02:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. It's snowing by now. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:38, 10 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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series)[edit]

Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is no more notable than the next album in the series, which was redirected as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series). Peter James (talk) 21:30, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(contribs · mail)} 22:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(contribs · mail)} 22:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(contribs · mail)} 22:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(contribs · mail)} 22:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a veiled attempt to delete the entire category tree below Category:Now That's What I Call Music! albums? That's several hundred albums, internationally.

I can see zero justification for deleting #52, then #51 (and then #50) as some sort of iterative deletion. If #2 was notable, then so is #51 (the external RS attention paid to them is no different). Also why has #52 (UK) been deleted, but #52 (US) untouched?

I'm happy to delete the entire category (all countries), leaving merely the lead article (per NOTDIR and I have no interest in this as a topic). But piecemeal removal of some articles is ridiculous and deleting the whole lot one by one even more so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Andy. Also, the argument seems to be for redirect which is not what AFD is for. They should all be redirected though, just not debated one at a time. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect the lot to the main article – I think I gave my opinion on the AfD for Now! 52, either keep them all or redirect them all, because none are more notable than the others. Richard3120 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect this one at the very least--I suspect all of the others could be similarly redirected. No doubt that the series as a whole is notable, but this particular iteration is not, as it fails WP:NALBUM. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yilloslime: Strictly speaking, it does pass WP:NALBUM – it reached number one on both the UK and Irish compilation charts, and was certified triple platinum in the UK, although none of this is mentioned in the article. But as I mentioned in the other AfD, EVERY Now! album manages that, so there is nothing to distinguish it from any other album in the series – either keep them all, or get rid of them all. Richard3120 (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. The article doesn't say that it charted. (Or if does, I'm somehow not seeing it.) Anyways, I still say redirect. Believe it or not, when drafting my initial !vote, I had started to write—but then abdandoned out of sheer laziness—that even if it had charted, I'd still favor redirection in this case. Unless there's something specific to say about this particular album, I can't think of good reason why wikipedia is best served by having a stand alone article. (The same could probably be said for all or most of the articles in the series—but that's a separate question.) Yilloslime ^T_C 05:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yilloslime: I know it doesn't say so, and I don't know why this information was never added – here's the proof of the album reaching no. 1 in both countries: [6], [7]. Nevertheless, I entirely agree with the rest of your argument above. Richard3120 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep do this as an RfC or something, not as hundreds of AfD discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. However that page needs a lot of work to be come a proper WP discography page with all the chart positions and certs. Many of these albums pass WP:NALBUMS (See BPI's searchable certification database and RIAA for US releases) but fail WP:GNG, so IMO all the articles should be redirected to the discography page once it was completed to standards, but as above that requires an RFC or Wikiproject discussion. I agree with Andy that the one by one approach is not the way to go. Mattg82 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose any redirection. These are either notable albums in their own right, or they're non-notable iterations in a clearly notable series. Either way, a redirect is useless. It's obvious what series they're part of, there is no value in redirecting this very specific title (seriously, what is going to link here?) to a broad article. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point. The only other options then are an RFC or the articles to be AFD'd en mass as there is nothing to stop other editors AFDing these one at a time. (See also an old but similar afd I've just remembered). Mattg82 (talk) 23:51, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beep: A Documentary History of Game Sound[edit]

Beep: A Documentary History of Game Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable film from non notable director sourced to Kickstarter and IMDB. Theroadislong (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only found the sources provided in the article, if you believe they are not good enough, please proceed with the deletion. Cheers! 3BRBS (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article now has references to sig cov in The Japan Times and Billboard Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although those two sources listed above are legit, I don't see how they are enough to keep the article from being considered unnotable. The current article only has four sentences, and getting rid of the other sources would only make that smaller. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen more sources have been added, and also as of today, I added a source from PC Gamer which seems reputable in the field, and some information depicted in the article. If you wish to check again the article, you are welcome. Cheers :] 3BRBS (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources are good, but I still see the issue of how this article would ever expand out of being a single paragraph long. It could basically be merged into video game music with no issues. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually expanded the article a bit by adding content present in the source, but then you removed that content and wrote: "keeping PCG source, but getting rid of the mostly copy pasted sentence that explains very little out of context". Indeed it seems contradictory when you say "how this article would ever expand", when on the other hand you are removing content. Sorry to say this, but you are sort of playing the role of judge and jury. Since the infomation was present in the source, I see no wrong or harm on keeping it :] 3BRBS (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it since it was mostly just copypasted from the article in an attempt to add more info. I kept the citation, if you didn't see. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since the article now has even more references, including: PC Gamer, CNET, The Daily Dot and Polygon. 3BRBS (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if not merge to video game music. Definitely not a delete. JOEBRO64 15:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above, not a delete. Has reliable coverage, notable enough to exist independently, even if it lacks content or not. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. PhilKnight (talk) 00:53, 11 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe's evening gown and shawl[edit]

Marilyn Monroe's evening gown and shawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of WP:GNG (I'm assuming there is no specific notability guideline for clothing, I can't find one?) Article created by editor who seems to have a connection to/possible WP:COI re May Mann and there is a section in that article on this dress which seems sufficient (and the content of this article is more about Mann than Monroe). The other two Monroe gowns that have independent articles are well-known and from "iconic" moments in her career, which this does not appear to be Melcous (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - unless I'm missing something I don't see how this is notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:39, 10 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. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument for deletion or redirection, only page moves (which can be done through WP:RM). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Cody[edit]

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

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

When searched on Google, "Camp Cody" returns with several results for Camp Cody in Freedom, NH. The article "Camp Cody (summer camp) should be able to be moved to the article page "Camp Cody," to reflect popularity. BBillCBear (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - this is not the forum to discuss this issue. And the solution should be to make a WP:DAB page. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep We've got two items. It's a disambiguation page. There's nothing to delete and you seem to be the only one bothered by the parenthical. Nate • (chatter) 23:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't know that either camp is the obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (the one in New Hampshire advertises and hosts weddings, so there are plenty of Google hits for that; but the one in New Mexico is responsible for at least a dozen out of the first 100 hits), so the current arrangement makes sense. Largoplazo (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems like a reasonable dab page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 4 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Todd May[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability per GNG or WP:NACADEMIC.^{(note 'keep' !vote below)} No significant coverage (of the subject) in reliable sources could be found. There is some coverage of one of his books (see the talk page), but not much else. Repeatedly recreated from the redirect by an IP, so worth having a discussion rather than edit warring over it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He appears to have once held a named chair (McDevitt Chair in Religious Philosophy) of Le Moyne College [8], therefore possibly satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #5. He is also Class of 1941 Memorial Professor of the Humanities at Clemson University [9]. His books are also reviewed in major publications, for example, Times Higher Education, The Guardian, LA Reviews of Books (this is in addition to specialist review publications, e.g. [10], [11]), therefore may qualify under WP:AUTHOR #3. There are also interviews and discussion ABC, Believer, and his work quoted and discussed in books (e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], among too many to list here). He therefore possibly satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #1. He has written opinion pieces for New York Times. I believe he is notable enough based on a few different notability criteria. Hzh (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that WP:NACADEMIC #5 will be satisfied by Le Moyne College because I wouldn't call it a "major institution of higher education and research". While the interviews are good sources, they can't be used to demonstrate notability because they are not independent of the subject. However, the reviews of his work and citations in other works might be enough to qualify for WP:AUTHOR #3 or WP:NACADEMIC #1. I'll let others weigh in before deciding to withdraw this nomination. I mainly submitted this article as a way to start a discussion due to edit warring on the page (reverting to redirect and back repeatedly). Thanks for your comments Hzh. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}

• Redirect or delete. Are we working with any biographical secondary sources? Because if so, I haven't seen them, nevertheless enough to write a biographical article that does justice to the topic. None of his book reviews go into enough depth to even describe his writing career. To review the above links, the THE and The Guardian reviews are both hopelessly short, leaving the LA Rev of Books piece. As I said months ago, The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism, which is supposed to be his standout work, was only reviewed in Ethics (philosophy journal) and Choice (very brief listings for librarian purchase recommendations): it isn't independently notable. And his other books did not receive many major reviews. The Google Books links have little substance on May apart from repeating what he said, e.g., even in the first link of the group, which has the longest relevance, there is no analysis and only recitation. I'd welcome other sources, especially if they are offline or in languages other than English. I would support restoring the redirect to Post-anarchism#Approaches, which is another mess but at least cites a secondary source in May's relation to "poststructuralist anarchism", the work for which he is best known, but since that single-sentence mention serves little function in the article, I'd also back the nom's rationale to delete. czar 02:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Size of reviews, need for analysis, offline sources or in other languages do not appear to be criteria for notability. However, establishing a new turn in concept ("poststructuralist anarchism" in his case) is for WP:NACADEMIC #1 - see here, and an interview here. Also counting towards WP:NACADEMIC #1 are citations, therefore you cannot dismissed the Google Books hits as they are part of how you can establish notability. You can also find multiple reviews for many of his books, for example Death - in addition to two already given above, also [17], [18] (the FT one reviewed a number of books, but it singled out May's book for praise, and later listed it as one of the books of the year of 2009 [19]). Same for other books - A Fragile Life - [20] in addition to THE and LA Review given above; a The Moral Theory of Poststructuralism - [21], [22]; A Significant Life - [23], etc. These should easily qualify him under WP:AUTHOR #3. Hzh (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We measure sources by the extent to which they address the subject, not counts of mere mentions. (We can write only write articles with the former, as the latter gives us no content to paraphrase.) "Poststructuralist" is an adjective that can be applied to anything. If you take Antliff's JSTOR article at its word that The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism was a "seminal" work—as I mentioned before, where are the sources that discuss it and its impact? Because if there are few or none, it means that the book and May's contribution to the concept should be addressed within the concept's own article. How does one write an article about a philosopher when the only sources are primary/affiliated (interviews/staff bios) or single book reviews (sometimes two) on individual books? Even a bibliography of Todd May article would be primitive based on such sparse sourcing. Philosophers show impact in field by having their work reviewed and discussed by their peers in the field's many journals. I don't see how that bar has been met here. czar 23:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are wrong there. Per WP:ACADEMIC, ordinary citations and reviews are counted towards notability - Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. You are not arguing based on established criteria. There are plenty of academics whose work are important enough to be merely cited and not discussed. It is also odd for you to say there is no discussion of his concept when there is one that starts the first sentence with him and describes his work as "seminal". You also appear to have completely ignored WP:AUTHOR, May is not just noted for poststructuralist anarchism, he qualifies under multiple criteria. (You also miscounted, I have already given three and four book reviews each for a few of his books.) Hzh (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I can't be any more exact, but in simple summation:

• If May's contributions to poststructuralism are important, per the same quoted guideline section, there would be more coverage than the single hagiographic Antliff statement. If instead his "significant impact" is attributed to his general academic career, there would be works that react to his points.
• If May's contributions as a general author are important, the major "reviews" would have more than cursory synopsis to express about his oeuvre. None of the Google Books texts above discuss any aspect of May's work that can be paraphrased for our purposes—they're simple citations and recitations, no secondary analysis. (Not to mention that the other major "reviews" mentioned above are largely short, routine, or from unreliable sources, and we could go source-by-source if necessary.) I have already given three and four book reviews each for a few of his books. If anyone actually read the content of those reviews, they'd find two or fewer (sometimes no) usable reviews for each book. And I thought we established that we don't have enough material to consider any of the books independently notable. Writing a handful of books, each reviewed once or twice in an area journal, is not an indicator of general author notability.

Any article written from the above sourcing will lack in biographical detail, and if scoped to just his works (bibliography of Todd May), would be so threadbare of content that no justice would be done to the topic. I don't need to be patronized by the text of the notability guidelines—I know them well—because the point of those guidelines is to presume notability. The substance of the sourcing is ultimately what determines the basis for the article, and in this case, the sources are weak and accordingly, there is no article. czar 00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you are still not arguing from any established notability guidelines. What you linked to is not even an official guideline. Per official guideline WP:AUTHOR #3 he should be author of a work that is the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Three or four independent reviews (and I'm sure there are more) for a book means "multiple". You appear to have misunderstood the purpose of the reviews, they are not there to help fill the article with content (although they may well can), they are there to establish notability. At the moment the article is still a stub, and it can be fleshed out by someone who wants to do it. All we are doing now is simply establishing whether it satisfies the notability criteria, which no doubt the subject does. Arguing from what you believe what an article should be (or even what kind of reviews you believe they should be) but which are not actually specified by notability guidelines is not going to help the discussion. Hzh (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I stick by GNG. May's work on political philosophy and poststructuralism is covered significantly by reliable (Peer-reviewed journals) and independent sources. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pirhayati, where is his work on poststructualism covered significantly? The claim to this effect in the article is unsourced, hagiographic. czar 23:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a review of his work on poststructuralism by an independent reliable source. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A single review isn't significant coverage, nor are the three reviews of his two works on poststructuralism in toto czar 00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to GNG, "significant" refers to the quality of source, not the number of sources. It simply means "non-trivial". Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I redirected the article due to the sourcing issues. Due to the commonality of his name, it is difficult to find sources which are about him specifically. However, I didn't go to AfD due to his citation count, which in my opinion clearly meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Although, with the current sourcing I wouldn't mind redirecting (obviously, since I did), without any issue with recreation, once reliable sourcing is included. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I nominated this article, but have been convinced that the topic meets WP:AUTHOR #3 and WP:NACADEMIC #1, based on reviews of his work. Even if the article briefly discusses him and is mostly about his academic work, such an article would appear to be well within Wikipedia's content guidelines based on the sources above. I am still not convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG, but rather that he qualifies on subject specific notability criteria alone (which is allowed per WP:PROF). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:27, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Chowdhury[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBIO. References are from primary sources and the article has been written by someone with close association with the individual as clear from one of the stated references Majumder, Sayan with account Sayan999 the seems to have an undisclosed COI. The content of the article is Primarly self promotion and does not establish notability. Hagennos (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any significant news coverage, and nothing on his book either, but it might be because it has very bad rankings.[24] --Ysangkok (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the article passes WP:GNG easily and we should not delete every article that has been added by someone with COI issues. My issues are with COI and those I am going to deal with in the next few days. I am already working to sort out a few other COI problems in some other articles, so I will add this to my watchlist and edit this as well. As the subject is notable we should work on building a correct article instead of deleting everything. Elektricity (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are planning on editing the article request you to move it to the draft space and edit it there. Hagennos (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagennos I think you misunderstood. My opinion is that the subject is notable, quite notable as one might say. However the peacock and promo concerns int he article should be removed. I don't think it is appropriate to draftify an article just because it has promotional and peacock terms. We should fix these in mainspace. Elektricity (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- promo 'cruft on a nn individual. Possibly created as part of a walled garden around the subject's company, which has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HashCash Consultants. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo. House1090 (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The COI issues needs to be resolved. But the subject has good coverage from several independent sources outside of his company. Passes WP:GNG. I will update some references and improve the article. Shivaji_Mitra (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your third edit in three years. Are you affiliated with Mr. Chowdhury? --Ysangkok (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@[[User:Ysangkok|Ysangkok] it doesn't have much impact. I have added sufficient sources to the article so that the notability is now even more clear, and I have removed most of peacocks, and am working on removing more. I will keep an eye on it even after the AFD so that no fluff is added. Elektricity (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elektricity you had not responded Ysangkok if you are affiliated with Mr. Chowdhury. If you have a COI it is important that you disclose it. Please respond on your talk page. Hagennos (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagennos I have not responded? I think you have not understood or read what is written here. I actually removed the peacock and other terms which COI edits had added, and as Ysangkok commented that perhaps Shivaji_Mitra has a COI, I pointed out that as I have watchlisted the article, it will not be easy to just edit and add promotional terms this time around, so there is not much of an impact that a COI account can have. Elektricity (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elektricity. My bad. Apologies. Hagennos (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagennos no problem. Kindly remove the template from my TP when you have time.Elektricity (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ysangkok No, I am not affiliated with the subject. I feel, teaming up against users who post Keep with conspiracy theories isn't helping us progress with a fair discussion. I am here to reason and work with you. Thank you.(talk) 01:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think the article satisfies WP:GNG. Most media mentions as not significant. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:19, 10 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. Killiondude (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mi familia perfecta (telenovela)[edit]

Mi familia perfecta (telenovela) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It may air, it may not. Nothing in the article or Google indicated notability, and this whole article is unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(contribs · mail)} 22:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The series can be sourced to Telemundo itself[25], but that's it. On that page it actually says "the channel has not yet released official information". Much too soon for an article: Noyster (talk), 11:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Concur with nom, this fails notability criteria and without any sourcing, it's gotta go. Waggie (talk) 17:42, 7 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 18:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moji (extension)[edit]

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

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

This topic shows no evidence of notability. It looks like a Firefox plug-in just like thousands of others. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per GNG. I can find nothing written about this that is independent of the developers. Cnilep (talk) 04:53, 10 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 18:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Park, Jhelum[edit]

Altaf Park, Jhelum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Run-of-the-mill park with no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NGEO SeraphWiki (talk) 20:29, 4 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 with sources added. AfD is not the Wikipedia Cleanup Dept. (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Stock Exchange Tower[edit]

Islamabad Stock Exchange Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing significant to pass WP:GNG. Alternate is to redirect to defunct Islamabad Stock Exchange. Störm (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deletion is not the answer. If not kept outright, it can be merged/redirected, probably to List of tallest buildings in Islamabad. --Doncram (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seventh tallest building in Islamabad and a headquarters building for several corporations. Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No sources means no stand-alone article. Störm (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current lack of sources in an article is not a reason for deletion. Probable existence of sources suffices. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to be one of the major buildings of Islamabad's skyline, per Doncram. Mar4d (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Today (4 January 2018) I added 7 references and 1 external link to this article. Replaced 2 non-working links. This 22-story twin tower building has many corporate offices which I backed up with my references. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Störm (talk) 13:38, 6 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 17:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wolff (consul-general)[edit]

Michael Wolff (consul-general) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete per GNG and NATHLETE.

A consul is, itself, not notable and an honorary consul less so. The subject's only other claims to fame is that he was allegedly "the first person to skydive and scuba dive the North Pole on the same day" which is sourced to two personal travel essays, and that he was captain of the Austrian team at the 2001 BASE jumping championship which is credited to a source that doesn't actually support this statement (and I'm not sure qualifies under NATHLETE even if it did).

On a separate note, this seems to be written by someone very close to Wolff. Most of the content since its creation in 2011 was added by one of three burner SPAs: User:Michelemier User:Henryhiggens, User:Sebastianhiggins. The images of Wolff are glamour shots credited as "own work" by one of them, and the entire tone of the article is highly promotional. Chetsford (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination Billhpike (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Puff piece for a non-notable, albeit interesting, individual. Boneymau (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. A social-media-esque autobiog on a non notable individual. Kb.au (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Boneymau and Kb.au. The sources provided are largely directly type listings, and so do not establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as per above. Interesting but hardly notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Be sure to delete from disambiguation page if deleting article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 9 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 18:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Reid[edit]

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

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

A prolific author. But has anyone paid the amount of independent coverage needed to met BLPN? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The link titled "Alarge collection of up to date articles and News on Daniel P Deid" is 404. Says it all, really. I know quackery reasonably well, this is not a notable quack. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, couldn't find anything on Google News or Scholar.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, Here is an updated archive of Media references and articles on subject. What is the point of deleting this page of a noted author on his field with over 20 main stream publications? What is the value to lose this article? KEEP!--Rickbrown9 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to pull out the big Wikipedia rubber mallet, but WP:GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

These are... ...not. Not. Not. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 01:09, 9 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 18:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josias Cardoso (Author)[edit]

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

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

This article was marked for removal by a user before, however citing this article for community discussion.it is from a TV and radio presenter, book writer, won best seller trophy by a book publisher and was nominated for literature award in his country. What to do: Delet or Keep? --juniorcardenas30 17:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion. In reading the Portuguese-languages sources:

Per WP:BIO there's no evidence of winning a "well-known and significant award or honor"; no "widely recognized contribution" in a particular field, only three self-published titles; and being a radio announcer is not a "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment".

Several of the URLs in the sources are dead. Prburley (talk)

Comment.My apologies to everyone, accidentally I marked the article for speedy deletion but I see that the links of the sources are working when analyzing with attention and and now see that evidence of winning a award published by Brazilian publishing house which does not configure self-publishing. I'm sorry for the mistake! --juniorcardenas30 23:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorcardenas30 (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion. Winning a best seller award from your own publisher is not a significant literary award. For a list of significant literary awards in Brazil, see Lista de prémios literários. For example, the Prêmio Machado de Assis. Prburley (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, nomination for an award is not notable of itself. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This discussion page was created without the ((afd)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion at this time on the nomination itself. @Juniorcardenas30: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 15:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:17, 3 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. Opinions are divided about whether the subject is notable, with some turning to standard metrics and others highlighting what they consider her significant contributions to linguistics. These are all valid arguments, and therefore the article is kept by default for lack of consensus to delete. Sandstein 18:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Lucie Tarpent[edit]

Marie-Lucie Tarpent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable academic. Clearly does not meet WP:PROF. <100 Google hits. Scopus lists a total of one academic article to her name (published in 1997 and has only six citations). According to the talk page, the article was pure COI. It was created by one of her friends and has been extensively edited by Tarpent herself. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Additionally, the article is circularly sourced all with subject's own papers/chapters. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to admit that I also used to think that people not much more accomplished than the subject here were notable, but I have come to see they are not. When I first created the article on Camille Fronk Olson, she had published more academic papers than the subject here, and had also authored multiple books, but that article was deleted, and it took her adding more to her publication record for it to return.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Scopus is of no use in this subject area. Tarpent has quite a few publications coming up on a google scholar search. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citation counts in Google Scholar are too low for WP:PROF#C1 and no other form of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think an area like Tsimshianic linguistics is wont to generate citation counts of the magnitude usually seen in more popular fields. Notability of academics is evaluated relative to their field, right? – Uanfala (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To a point, but the smaller the pond one considers the bigger the fish would have to be to be considered notable. Otherwise anyone could be considered notable, by being the authority in the specific subject of their own research. And Tsimshianic linguistics seems like a pretty small pond to me. I'd rather compare her to linguists considered more broadly. And given how easy it is in linguistics to find papers that individually have thousands of citations, hers just don't stack up. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Browsing the sources out there, it seems clear that the page is reasonably accurate. I found a report written by Susan Marsden, who seems to be a curator at the Museum of Northern British Columbia and so was being consulted as an authority. This states that "Marie-Lucie Tarpent, a linguist who works with the southern Tsimshian at Kitasoo and with the Nisga’a, has contributed significantly to the understanding of the language and the importance of morphemes (the component words that make up most words)." I consider that this is adequate to pass WP:NACADEMIC, which states "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". When athletes are routinely permitted pages just for showing up on the sport field, we should not set the bar higher for respectable scholars. The page should be permitted to remain for further development per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I mostly agree with Andrew D.'s assessment above. She seems to be notable in her narrow field of linguistics. I concur with Uanfala that citation metrics are not the best criteria to be used in this case. From WP:Academic "Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects." She may fall under that last portion of criterion 1. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous studies (like AA studies, women's studies, etc.) have been growing rapidly in the last several decades. It is most certainly not a narrow area of study. Agricola44 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is noteworthy WP:PROF is a guideline and it should be weighed with common sense. There's really exception here. A person described as authority in a particular discipline by reliable sources such is enough to o merit an article in a truly educational encyclopedia. Ammarpad (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The last 3 "keeps" have been tendered on the basis of a standard academic flourish ("contributed significantly") in an unpublished report by someone whose affiliation I cannot find. This is far short of what we typically accept for PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PROF is not a rigid rule; it's a guideline and states explicitly that "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you maintain that the opinion of an apparently amateur historian expressed in a single, unpublished work, with no other corroborating RS is enough to convince you that this person is notable? Agricola44 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" Amateur historian"?! this is not surprising for someone who expressed WP:JNN-like delete argument. Academic like this will not get scooped by journalist for every immense underground work they do for human literature like how they'll do when really amateur musician posts "hi" on Twitter. That's why WP:PROF is guideline and common sense will tell us not stick to array of sources but the quality of their content, the impact and academic authority the subjects enjoys. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find your argument to be inscrutable. Are you saying that the report by Marsden has appeared as a peer-reviewed publication? After looking a fair bit, I could not find any material vouching for the reliability of this document. If you have more info, please share. Otherwise, you and the other "keeps" are basing your !votes on a single, unreliable source. Agricola44 (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thsmi002. Agricola44 is being obtuse in response: she is an actual leader in her extremely narrow field for the purposes of that guideline. I find it a bit ludicrous to try to claim that a linguist specialising in very specific languages is really specialising in "indigenous studies" (er, no) for the purposes of trying to end-run WP:PROF. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be rude to a respected and experienced editor by calling her obtuse. The editor has a long record at academic Afds and knows policy in that area probably as well as anybody. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• I beg your pardon. Each broad intellectual topic has numerous specialties, which have numerous sub-specialities, and so on down the line. For example a person working on E₈ applied to theoretical physics would be called a "physicist" and would likely be found in a department of physics. We could, for almost any intellectual, commit the fallacy of continuing to sub-divide a field of study in order to drill down to a sufficiently specialized area to be able to then claim that "she is an actual leader in her extremely narrow field". By definition, most academics do indeed "specialize" in this context, and would therefore be notable using your (fallacious) argument. This particular person has worked on a specific indigenous language, which is certainly a part of both linguistics and indigenous studies, both of which are well-established academically. (If you doubt the second claim, consider that numerous institutions have established departments of indigenous studies and there are numerous dedicated journals on the topic.) It is true that these are not highly-cited areas (having commensurately higher inclusion bars) like applied physics or molecular biology, but Tarpent's research impact (record available in GS) is very mediocre, even by the lowest of standards. A paper from 1983 has 17 citations and one from 1997 has 23. The rest are single digits. The article is mostly sourced with Tarpent's own works, her CV, a grant application (for which she was not the PI), an unrefereed report, etc. General web searching turns up nothing more than facebooky-type hits, faculty pages, etc., but no general coverage (like in newspapers) that would qualify her under GNG. Finally, WorldCat shows holdings of her print books to be in the single digits. So, you might comment on which of these aspects renders her notable. Agricola44 (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Unfortunately the farthest I can stretch the GS h-index is 6, which is inadequate even for an obscure field. Thanks to Andrew D [26] for drawing attention to this AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep -- linguistics is a low-cited field, but Google books bring up enough mentions to indicate that the subject is considered an expert in the field link. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's entries in Google books are of material written by the subject, not about her by others and the link you give are just of people acknowleging help. They don't count as citations. Citations are not necessarily small in linguistics, Noam Chomsky has over 100,000 GS citations, the subject has less than 100. Looks like a WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Chomsky is widely regarded as the most influential living intellectual in any field and is explicitly described in our article as "one of the most cited scholars in history". He's probably not the most useful point of comparison. Also, the subject of this AfD is a 76-year-old retired professor, so I'm not sure when you'd be expecting WP:TOOSOON to expire? – Joe (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be charitable, but I guess WP:Too soon has expired already. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I count maybe ~40 individual citations and acknowledgements (the latter which don't count). This is very mediocre and pushing to classify her area as "very narrow" and therefore a low-enough-citation-area that we should exempt this case from standards is basically special pleading. Citations, whether in books, journals, or conf papers are counted individually and equally...and low double-digits over a many-decades career simply does not disntinguish Tarpent from the "average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Largely per the comments of Agricola44. Looks like she fails WP:NACADEMIC and she definitely looks to fail WP:GNG. While we have to be very careful not to just look at an academic's citation count and H-index before deciding whether they are notable, we also can't just say "it's a small field" and ignore their publication record. Are there any independent secondary sources that actually discuss Tarpent and her impact on her field in any depth? And we have to be careful here, if we define an academic's "field" narrowly enough then nearly all academic researchers would pass criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. One sentence in one report doesn't meet a reasonable threshold in my opinion. -- Shudde^talk 09:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Linguistics is not that small a field, that there wouldn't be some coverage, re: trade magazines, awards and honours (medals), professional qualifications, professional bodies, institutes, academies, associations etc, paper's and so on. scope_creep (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As a linguist, after looking carefully into some of Tarpent's published works, I believe she has made significant contributions to the analysis of the Nishka and Gitskan languages which cannot be found in other studies. Even if these languages are not considered to be on the same level as those covered by Chomsky, her biography therefore deserves to be included in the encyclopaedia.--Ipigott (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The personal opinions of editors count for little unless supported by independent sources and there are too few of them here. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I offered my "opinion" after adding to the article. The article and its references have developed considerably since it was tagged. In any case, I still maintain the main role of an encyclopaedia is to be informative, in line with the views of Andrew Davidson.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references are still mostly her own works and websites and such. Equally problematic, none of the usual indicators for passing PROF are there, as explained above. Your justification seems to boil down to, as you said, "I believe..." Agricola44 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:IAR. Yes, there's no way this can be stretched to a pass of WP:PROF or any other SNG. But the purpose of notability guidelines are to help us decide which topics we can write good encyclopaedia articles about. And looking it this page, I see a good encyclopaedia article. Thanks to Queen-washington, Thsmi002, and Ipigott, it's an informative biography of a scholar who made significant contributions to linguistics, primary sources are used appropriately, and it violates none of our core content policies. Deleting it would be a detriment to the encyclopaedia, so why delete it? – Joe (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question with your observation "there's no way this can be stretched to a pass of WP:PROF or any other SNG". I would submit that all the recent keeps are nothing more than editor POVs. Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF states plainly at the outset that it should be "treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I reckon that the subject passes criterion #1 but this might otherwise reasonably be considered one of those exceptions. Andrew D. (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do agree that notability is a valid concern and I understand why Bueller 007 nominated the article as he found it. But we're not here to apply rote rules, we're here to write an encyclopaedia, and against the odds this has been turned into a decent encyclopaedia article. Put another way, can the delete !voters point to anything that is actually wrong with the article, other than the fact it doesn't meet the letter of WP:PROF? Which, let's remember, is a guideline. – Joe (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF, which is a flawed guideline when it comes to fields other than hard sciences and fails to take into account citation and publishing biases,[27], [28], but nonetheless in this case supports maintaining the article. She was chair of the department of languages at Mount Saint Vincent University.[29], [30]. This, this and this are works not by the author, which discuss her work and could be used to improve the article. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Getting a bit off topic, but I think it would be a good idea to incorporate those biases into the guideline. WP:PROF#Citation metrics does make reference to disciplinary differences but it's rather vague and out of date. – Joe (talk) 17:09, 10 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. The consensus is to delete. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Religious Wars[edit]

List of Religious Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I wouldn't deny that this is a potentially viable list: however I very much doubt that a comprehensive (ie useful) list could be compiled. It would simply be too depressingly long. TheLongTone (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to religious war, which already gets into the listing business. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the fact that the article lacks French Wars of Religion, makes me sceptical of its usefulness from a broad historical context. To add to problems, what is and what is not a religious war is a complex issue, and the mentioned article better can sort this out than a free standing list. For example, to what extent was the 80 Years War a religious war, and to what extent was it a Dutch movement against Spanish imperialism?John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is new. Maybe you should add the French Wars of Religion? :) Malinaccier (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator wants to delete the article because it would be too long and depressing? Neither of these reasons is a valid reason for deletion. The topic is notable and there are many lists of wars by type that function perfectly well (see Outline of war#Wars). Johnpacklambert's point is that it is difficult to assign a criteria for inclusion to the list. Setting a criteria for inclusion is always an important for lists and should be determined by consensus. This list was only started on December 26th, I am not surprised that a criterion for inclusion has not yet been defined. Again, this is not a good reason to delete the list—it is a good reason to improve the list. Malinaccier (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to religious war which already lists important events with more complete prose. —PaleoNeonate – 20:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- WP:TNT: In principle it would be nice to a list article, but this is not it, nor are the examples in Religious wars particularly helpful. Differences of religion are a factor in many wars, particularly where they become ethnicities or quasi-ethnicities, as in the Serb/Croat conflict in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, where the major difference was whether you wrote much the same language with Roman or Cyrillic script. In Yemen the surrogate conflict is Shia/Sunni, but it is perhaps as much about whether the South should rule the North or vice versa and which tribe or clan should be the ruling group. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Userfy per WP:TNT. Many of the 5 wars currently listed are questionable for inclusion whereas notable religious wars (say, umm, the Crusades) are not listed. This topic could be notable. At the present state it simply is not at a level appropriate for main space.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Firstly, per WP:TNT. If there were going to be an article, it would need to be restarted from the ground up. It would also need to be renamed. Since that theoretical article would have replaced every part of this article, it would actually not be this article but a brand new article, so there is no benefit to retaining this unrelated one. Secondly, it is unclear what the criteria would be for including a war as a "religious war", particularly since for most wars, countries tend to have multiple motives for entering into many of their wars. Would both sides have to be fighting for religious reasons, or just one? Would religion have to be the primary motivator, one of several significant motivators, or just any motivator at all? Would a war with clearly secular motives count if you got the pope's permission first, as one contemporary chronicler suggestes the Norman conquest of England was? Would inclusion be based on what the participants said at the time, or modern historical consensus? (For example, a war where historians consider the declaration of a war on religious grounds an obvious pretext for something the ruler wanted to do anyway.) Is it enough to attribute victory to divine intervention, or to thank your deity/deities for all that new territory you have after the war is over? If the ruler is considered a living god, is any war they fight a religious war? What about any war the Papal states was involved in? Lists need to have clear criteria for inclusion, and this one would not. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. Ill-defined, possible impossible-to-define list. To be sure, there are some undeniable religious wars, ie. the Hussite Wars, but in general it is difficult to separates a "religious" war from a war of conquest, a dynastic struggle, or other kinds of wars where the Pope, or the Ottoman Emperor acting as Caliph declares a war to be a crusade or jihad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think that aside from the Crusades, there are few cases where reliable sources define wars as primarily religious in nature. Usually it is a religious conflict in the context of a greater war. Thus I think the list is unworkable and will invite a lot of unsourced additions over time. SeraphWiki (talk) 20:21, 4 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 Wrong venue. Has been nominated at RfD here. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 16:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual nation[edit]

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

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

A removed redirect. 333-blue 13:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I mostly agree with the edit summary left by the person who blanked the redirect. "Virtual nation" isn't a synonym for "fictional country"; while that isn't dispositive, since synonymy is hardly the only grounds for redirection, the term "virtual" doesn't appear in the original redirect target, fictional country, and "virtual national" implies to me something like an online community that simulates the operation of a country, which is completely different from anything covered at the redirect target. Therefore, I consider the redirect to be inaccurate and misleading. Largoplazo (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong forum This should be taken to WP:RFD Iffy★Chat -- 15:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I've boldly removed the AFD tag, restored the original redirect, and submitted the page to RFD. Can someone wrap this discussion up? Largoplazo (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Iffy★Chat -- 16:40, 3 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 17:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Bloom (Neck Deep Song)[edit]

In Bloom (Neck Deep Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing how this single passes WP:NMUSIC.Could be redirected to Neck Deep. Winged Blades^Godric 13:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/tracks/n4f3xz but it's in no way a reliable source. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but it's not yet a notable song at any rate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 5 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 deleted by Doug Weller per G3. (non-admin closure) Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rich Smith[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual, no coverage from reliable sources. Had tagged for speedy delete one of many new accounts removed it, so AFD process it is. Greyjoy ^talk 12:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant hoax, and very similar to an earlier article that was deleted following a deletion discussion Icarusgeek (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:18, 3 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 Destruction discography#Studio albums. If additional (reliable) sources for the album become available, I would not see any issue with Thrash Anthems II being re-spun off (redirect reverted). Thrash Anthems, which appears to have been attempted to be nominated (but only listed on article page & not mentioned by the nominator here), is closed as keep. As usual, if you have any concerns with the closure or feel that it should be opened to further discussion, please reach out to me on my talk page (and please be civil). (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thrash Anthems II[edit]

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

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

I cannot see why this recording is notable; my redirect to the band keeps being undone. Seeking a broader consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC) I am also nominating Thrash Anthems II for the same reason.[reply]

Incidentally, although I made both of these articles into redirects to the band concerned, I do have doubts as to whther a redirect of such a generic title is a good idea.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like people undoing your redirects, leave more coherent edit summaries. These half-baked comments aren't exactly clear to newbies. If I were new and that's all the feedback I got, I'd revert you too. Sergecross73 msg me 04:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RedirectNon notable, most of it ocmes from the non RS BLABBERMOUNT.NET. I don't think it is too generic. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Wow, a lot of sloppy work done here - a lot to cover. First, to clarify, I assume the nominator wishes to delete the articles Thrash Anthems and Thrash Anthems II. The nomination alludes to multiple articles, but only mentions Thrash Anthems II by name (twice.) But the nominator was edit warring across both articles, and put the deletion notice on both, so I assume they meant to bundle these 2 together in one nomination. Which was ill-conceived as well - they're totally different releases with different scenarios to look into.

• Thrash Anthems - Keep - Plenty of dedicated, reliable source coverage exists for this release. Sources are reliable per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, and are detailed and dedicated to the release:

1. Lengthy AllMusic review.
2. Exclaim review.
3. Blabbermouth review.
4. Metal Injection review.
5. Rock Hard review (A long-running German print magazine - Rock Hard (magazine).)

• Thrash Anthems II - Redirect - Conversely, I'm not seeing any dedicated reviews for II. However, it shouldn't be deleted, it's got sources that verify its existence, and is a plausible search term, so it's worth redirecting the band or its discography article. It's only been out a month, so its conceivable it'll get more coverage down the line, so I'd be open to spinning it out if more sourcing comes out down the line. Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Thrash Anthems II - Redirect - Honestly, I've got to agree with Sergecross. Until there's enough coverage found for the article, it would be best to redirect the album to the Destruction discography page. ULTRA-DARKNESS^{:) 2 CHAT} 17:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I wasn't able to find any good sources to establish notability for this album SeraphWiki (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To closing admin - Because no one else is mentioning the original Thrash Anthems by name, (not even the nominator), I'd ask that you please don't redirect it when you redirect Thrash Anthems II. (Disregard if future comments change the current consensus.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 5 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. It is broadly agreed that privacy concerns do not trump accurate reporting of reliably sourced criminal convictions by public figures. bd2412 T 04:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes[edit]

List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I propose to delete this list because of privacy concerns; specifically, the increasingly recognized "right to be forgotten". While I agree that this information should be retained in the respective individual articles if the persons are notable and the convictions received media coverage, for those persons who are not notable this list is a "online pillory" of sorts, publicly stigmatizing them as criminals only because they happened to be politicians at one time, even if their conviction has nothing to do with their public office. We do not similarly stigmatize other people just because of their job (e.g., there's no "list of American gardeners convicted of crime"), and we should not do so here. Otherwise we leave the door open to making similar lists that attempt to make a political point by implicitly portraying a whole group of people as criminals, e.g. "List of African Americans convicted of crime", "List of journalists ...", "List of conservative politicians ...".

There are also other concerns with this list. It's obviously very incomplete, and can't ever be reasonably complete given the probably tens of thousands of names that would need to be added, down to every proverbial village dogcatcher convicted of, say, cruelty to animals. This means that inclusion is essentially random, and the list provides a misleading and very incomplete picture of criminality by US politicians. Of course many of our lists are incomplete, but given the particular WP:BLP concerns with this list, we should not tolerate this in the same way we can live with the incompleteness of say, anime episode lists.

Moreover, the list is out of our scope (WP:NOT). It essentially attempts to replicate a subset of official criminal record databases. Such databases are normally well regulated by law, including as regards the extent to which information in them may be made public, and are maintained by professionals and overseen by specialized authorities. That's not the case for Wikipedia. We should not attempt to accomplish a task for which we are entirely unsuited.

Finally, the list topic is not notable per WP:LISTN. While of course crimes by individual politicians do get media coverage, the criminality of US local politicians as a group is not covered in any detail in any reliable sources that I am aware of or that are cited in the article. But such coverage of the topic as a whole would be required to make the list topic notable. Sandstein 12:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For ease of discussion I have added numbers to Sandstein's arguements.Orliepie (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I undid this. Do not edit the comments of others. Sandstein 23:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 3 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} 13:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NOTCENSORED and lack of EU (or Argentine) jurisdiction over Wikipedia. The list's inclusion criteria at present states Not everyone who works in government is a politician save those who meet the requirements of Notability in the English Wikipedia. Private citizens, businessmen and family should not be included, unless they relate to the crime as co-defendants. so all those mentioned are in any event eligible notability wise, WP:NPOL, for a Wikipedia article. A list of American NPOL eligible politicians intersected by crime conviction is not unmanageable in size. Nom's comment of "down to every proverbial village dogcatcher convicted" is addressed by the list inclusion criteria of meeting NPOL which at present does not include dogcatchers.Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Futhermore, the subject of convicted politicians has been addressed as a group, for instance: A Brief History of Members of Congress Breaking the Law, The Atlantic, 20 notable politicians convicted of crimes since 2000, Deseret News, Politicians who have been indicted, Politico, Lock Him Up: Impeachments in the United States, Don Riley.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how the particular grouping of "convicted state and local politicians" is notable by itself, Your 1st source deals with convicted federal politicians (and even links to the associated Wikipedia article) and isn't relevant to this discussion, the 2nd and 3rd sources groups convicted federal and state politicians in to a single group called "convicted politicians", and the 4th has Donald Trump (a federal politician) on the front cover. I may consider supporting a merge of the 2 articles (if someone's up to the task) as there's no question of the combined group being notable, but I can't see the notability of this particular grouping. Iffy★Chat -- 15:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I admittedly ignored the distinction here between state&local and federal (as opposed to American politicians, in general, convicted of crimes). However this seems to be more of a matter of article organization and readability than a notability issue - I think a merge would result in a less readable article.Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not think that NOTCENSORED applies here. That policy means that we don't exclude content just because somebody objects to it, e.g. on moral grounds. But we do routinely exclude content to which people object on policy grounds. And concern for the privacy of the people we cover is very much part of our policies, see e.g WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. (...) The possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." That's the kind of judgment we exercise in omitting content such as that discussed here. Sandstein 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cited NOTCENSORED due to your nomination motivation of because of privacy concerns; specifically, the increasingly recognized "right to be forgotten" - which is not Wikipedia policy, is something many (me included) object to being referred to as a right, and is being used to censor on-line outlets (e.g. Google, maybe Wikipedia next?) in the EU. Policy wise, many on this list are dead (e.g. 19th century) and BLPCRIME doesn't apply. Anyone who is not dead meets WP:PUBLICFIGURE - so it is irrelevant anyway, and in any case WP:BLPCRIME states "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. This list would be appropriate even if these were little known people (if the list were, in and of itself notable, e.g. "list of Jihadist terrorists" or "list of janitors convicted of obstruction" (jokingly - if this were treated as a set) - as a conviction has been secured.Icewhiz (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NOTCENSORED and the amount of work that so many editors have made. JimmyJoe87 (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Furthermore, there are other articles also dedicated to the conviction of politicians e.g List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes JimmyJoe87 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per pretty much everything Sandstein says. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a primary principle, and has a lesser rank than WP:BLP, and once again I return to the ARBCOM ruling of yore that "Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects." Really, most appeals to WP:NOTCENSORED ought to be a signal to those making the appeal to get a conscience/morals tune-up. And the fact that people have spent a lot of time on this says only that (a) too many people should have known better, and that (b) this should have been deleted sooner. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would even like to see this list expanded to something similar to List of federal political scandals in the United States which was also nominated for deletion in 2010 and again in 2017. The result was Keep, twice. Conviction is a more restrictive label than scandal and as a result this list should remain.

1. I would argue politicians give up the right to normal privacy when they run for public office and are paid by public funds.

2. Of course it's incomplete, encyclopedias, wikipedia and democracy itself is an always moving always changing topic. Remember, you can help to make the list less incomplete by adding more entries.

3. Out of our scope? Nothing is outside wikipedia's scope. Hence the name, wikipedia.

4. In paragraph 3 you state,"databases are normally well regulated by law" then you state "criminality of US local politicians as a group is not covered". Please make up your mind. Besides, what others cover is irrelevant. This is wikpedia. Political criminals as a group, any group are very notable.Orliepie (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC) — Orliepie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Per your point 1, you don't get to overrule BLP policy that way. And per your point 3, much of WP:NOT is devoted to excluding various things from WP's scope. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political scandals are something entirely different. Not every conviction of a politician constitutes a scandal, and vice versa. Sandstein 23:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orliepie, I do not know a lot of things, but I do know that your completely and utterly wrong on point 1-3 (no comment on point 4, it's whatever for me, but fair I suppose). 1, 2, and 3; I have to repeat are just so wrong. I a Middlesex Community College student, obviously I deserve a normal amount of privacy, but I also got elected to public office. I am not going out of my way to mention the details of my life to other people, and I expect others to respect that it doesn't affect anything involving my professional life. Unless I am guilty of misusing public funds, corruption, or abuse of power; unless the media fairly reports on it, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.

I also don't get paid any money. Local politics is mostly a volunteering gig, so we shouldn't be operating under the assumption that Wikipedia is the watchdog of criminal behavior for some baker who got elected to the Board of Education (and was arrested for smoking pot 20 years ago). It's none of our business, I don't see a real policy argument behind it, and the fact it will "always be changing" means we shouldn't include it for the sole reason that it will waste our editors time trying to do simple maintenance on it. At the very least, it could be a category of already notable local politicians like Joe Ganim. I can't even respond to 3. I will just say you really should rethink that.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is 8 years old. You're the first to complain.Newlenp (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This has been around a long time" is never going to fly as a reason. We don't grandfather bad material. Mangoe (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Right to be forgotten is a European law that is not applicable here. I have no problem with the list and, as the previous editor says, there has not been one for eight years.104.163.153.162 (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems a lot of time and effort has gone into the making of this article since it was first created. Clearly many people find the article interesting as there are 8 years worth of edits. 82.132.214.246 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List of federal political scandals in the United States is a similar article to List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. I've been asked to help with pinging editors who participated in the "List of federal political scandals in the United States" deletion discussions to inform them of this discussion.

  Pinging participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political scandals of the United States who have been active in the last year: Hairhorn (talk · contribs), The Bushranger (talk · contribs), Hmains (talk · contribs), Monterey Bay (talk · contribs), Jengod (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and Wasted Time R (talk · contribs).

  Pinging participants at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 4#Political scandals of the United States who have been active in the last year: Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), Mkativerata (talk · contribs), Bearcat (talk · contribs), JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs), and Jclemens (talk · contribs).

  Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of federal political scandals in the United States participants: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs), Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs), Atsme (talk · contribs), Johnsagent (talk · contribs), C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs), Valleyjc (talk · contribs), cnzx (talk · contribs), Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), Natureium (talk · contribs), My very best wishes (talk · contribs), Newlenp (talk · contribs), power~enwiki (talk · contribs), and Orliepie (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All these individual are notable, and everything here can be documented. We have almost always held that for the career of an elected politician, convictions of crimes are relevant content and BLP does not justify their exclusion even when it would for a non public figure, or even a public figure in other walks of life where some crimes might be regarded as irrelevant to their profession, because the overall moral fitness of a politician is relevant to the nature of -their profession. I think we would even include crimes less then felonies ,because the public does use them in its judgements. There is only one real problem in the article--it only covers the last few years and needs extend backwards. In the US the right to be forgotten does not apply,so we do not have to take it into account. When dealing with countries where it does apply, it is in direct opposition to our basic principle of not censored, and I would argue for ignoring it at enWP except for instances WP:LEGAL insisted we remove it. But for US figures that's not relevant. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All of them, local, state and federal as per US legal Code, there is no 'right to be forgotten' especially for public officials. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and all such list articles ought to be banned Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My biggest concern with this list is that most local politicians are not notable. So creating a list of those who are convicted of crimes seems to give undue weight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not accept the argument that any "right to be forgotten" applies here, or to Wikipedia in general for clearly notable people. As for the dogcatcher concern, this list should be restricted to clearly notable politicians who either have biographies already, or are obviously notable such as state legislators. All others should be removed. Because of the issue of public trust, politicians are (or should be) held to a much higher standard than gardeners and most other occupations. Another concern is that these should be criminal convictions. Kris Kobach, for example, got fined by a judge for misrepresenting some documents. He should be removed from the list. These are maintenance issues, not arguments to delete. Sources linked to above make it clear that there is widespread coverage of the intersection between politicians and convicted criminals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Changing the scale does not negate the concept. If a federal politician affects the entire United States and is notable, is not a state politician affecting his state just as notable? Who are we to judge who or what is more important to South Dakotians? Sheriff Joe Arpaio affected Arizona on a daily basis in ways federal politicians arguably did not. Politicians of all stripes, areas and sizes are equally important if they are affecting YOU.Valleyjc (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would I get a Wikipedia page because I matter to anyone petitioning the Cromwell Board of Assessment Appeals? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep politicians have no special right to hide their wrongdoings--if anything, it is just the opposite for public figures. If these politicians and their supporters object to being included in a list of criminals, they should have thought of that before they did the crime. BLP is of no consequence when actions are fully documented with sources--as these entries are. Hmains (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- politicians, especially state-level, are by their nature not "low profile individuals" and the right to be forgotten does not apply to them. Most are blue-linked entries and the list appears to be well sourced. I think the case for removing nn local-level politicians (i.e. a county comissioner without an article) could be made on the talk page. I would support removal of those who meet the two criteria: a. they do not have articles, and b. do not meet WP:NPOL. If such discussion commenses post closure (if this article is kept), I would be happy to be pinged about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - American politicians who commit crimes have no "right to be forgotten". Quite the contrary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Clearly meets LISTN, the topic of local public corruption is well-covered in news and academia. The BLP concerns raised do not apply to those who have willingly placed themselves in the public sphere in order to obtain political power. Frankly, any XFD nomination citing a so-called "right" to be "forgotten" should be laughed out of the venue. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The flip side of elected politicians getting autopasses for WP biographies is that they are all basically notable in WP terms when the shit hits the fan. As long as this is adequately footnoted it is neither defamatory nor coatracking. WP is not paper and this strikes me as a valid navigational device. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list, as drafted, doesn't pass WP:LISTN. The criteria seem too vague and so the crimes include things like reckless driving and trespass. Myself, I once created a list of honest politicians. It didn't have these problems as it was carefully constructed using sources which discussed the matter in a general way and which cited paragons such as Cincinnatus. Nevertheless that list was deleted. To have one list without the other is not neutral. To have it just for some recentist list of US politicians makes look like Wikipedia is being used for blatant character assassination contrary to WP:BLP and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your article was deleted, so this is payback time?Johnsagent (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep meets WP:LISTN and as usual add only those people who are convicted. Orientls (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This list is a maintenance nightmare and includes many non-notable individuals. A category would be a much more appropriate way of conveying this information, and would save editors the trouble of having to weed out non-notable individuals, since categories can only be applied to articles. I also agree with much of the arguments put forth by User:Sandstein and User:Andrew Davidson. 28bytes (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete given that the current version does not provide a definition of "crime". The list does specific that it should include only individuals who committed crimes while in office, and I myself would favor changing the article title to reflect that. But there is no indication regarding when the convictions take place, and they could be several years after the pol leaves office. A list of politicians removed from office for criminal activity would be more useful and have fewer problems, as would a list of politicians who resigned from office for criminal activity. But particularly with the freaking huge number of politicians who might do something to be included, and the lack of definition of one of the primary qualifiers for the list, "crime," and the likelihood that real world opponents of the individuals are likely to try to push the standards of notability for the purposes of smearing them, this individual list as it is currently constructed looks to me like maybe creating more problems than it might solve. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list appears to be an indiscriminate collection of various American politicians accused of all kinds of things. It includes too many non-notable politicians, and easily acts as some sort of dart board. If a politician has committed some sort of crime reported in reliable sources, it should go on the article itself. Possibly worth an attempt to clean up, but WP:TNT it first if you shall. !dave 20:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as convictions are clearly sourced and dates are added, in brackets, as to when they were convicted. 82.132.187.183 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I quote from WP:LISTN - The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, Johnsagent (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP (and TNT). Absent that, pair it down to only those cases which received national or international attention (so local sources, however reliable, are not enough this being BLP and all).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per our BLP policy for public figures. Keeping information in pages for individual politicians, but not in the list does not really makes sense. Note that being convicted of a crime is a matter of fact, rather than a matter of judgement, so including someone in the list should not be a matter of dispute if reliably sourced. "List of African Americans convicted of crime" or "List of conservative politicians ..." would be more disputable as possibly "inherently POV" lists. But "List of journalists..." would arguably be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe case for deletion is very weak, though the article might be tweaked, I am unconvinced it should be deleted. Caltropdefense (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no convincing argument has been presented for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  Just seems to have the effect of disparaging people, and there is not a single link in the lede.  So the group is itself someone's WP:OR, while WP:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources says that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."  So fails WP:LISTN exceptionally.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is noting exceptional for an US politician to be convicted of crime, as this list shows. The convictions are usually reliably reported and can be easily verified. My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteKeep and expand into spinout articles- but I completely disagree with the reasoning in the nomination. Politicians (federal, state, local, or otherwise) should not be given a "right to be forgotten". If you decide to put yourself out there in public and run for office, you should have to deal with the consequences of your behavior. In the position of power they are in, they need to be held to a higher standard than everyone else. If for no other reason, they should not be forgotten in the event they ever even think of running for office again. That said, the reason I support deletion is because the list is not complete, nor can it possibly be without taking up a ridiculous amount of space. There are hundreds (actually more likely thousands) of other politicians who would qualify for inclusion in this list. Keeping an incomplete list gives WP:UNDUE weight to the people who were selected for inclusion.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be spunout eithier by state or time period as per USER:Icewhiz below. That will address the issue of length and we can include all of the persons with articles who meet the criteria for inclusion which will avoid giving WP:UNDUE towards only the selected politicians (as is the problem now)--Rusf10 (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for lists to be complete according to our guidelines - see here. Also, why do you think many more items should be included? "Likely thousands"? Any sources to justify such numbers? My very best wishes (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list potentially could be completed, but its length would be too great. The sources are in the articles that already exist. I can think of several politicians that have been convicted of crimes but do not appear on the list (and that's just the ones I know of).--Rusf10 (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But perhaps the list is already nearly complete, or it can be easily completed. Why do you think this is not a case. Is any database of crimes by US politicians? If so, that could help to clarify the question. My very best wishes (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example [31], that's just one state over a 13 year period and it only includes members of the state legislature. Now throw in some mayors, county executives, members of the cabinet, etc. (assuming they meet notability guidelines), multiply it out by 50 states and nearly 250 years, and you can easily end up with thousands.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One needs a notability cutoff for including people in the list, for example we should have page about the included politicians. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Honestly, I can't stress this enough. The page has 297,860 bytes in total of content. Who is going to manage that? Why should we continue spending editor time and effort to upkeep this potentially dangerous page. If you think it is important to keep track of notable politicians' crimes, then I encourage you to add to Category:American politicians convicted of crimes. Expanding that more streamlines maintenance tasks to individual BLP pages making reporting attacks easier. It currently is just really easy to edit in an unsubstantiated claim if done during the right time of day. Separately, it also is becomes hard to detect a user with bad intentions who includes an article citation that makes a politician look bad for a relatively minor crime (regardless of circumstance) by disguising it as during their time in office.

Further, Comment there are several entries in this list that use WP:BLPPRIMARY even as this is against wikipedia policy. I also encourage the reading of WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

Finally, I agree with nominator Sandstein 's reasonings and intentions behind citing the "right to be forgotten". It is a legal precedent that is very important to look at. As I have mentioned before, I am a local politician. Though I have not committed any crimes (that I am aware of 0.0), I do think I am deserving of the same respect, dignity, and privacy as any other person commenting. People talk a lot about holding elected officials accountable, but I do not think people understand what that should look like for Wikipedia. Well, the answer is simple. Politicians are accountable to whomever elected them. That means if you are from Cromwell, Connecticut, I have to serve you, but I am not under any obligation to any other individual for my time as a member of a local board in town. Local politicians are really not very special. They are actually low-profile (even state ones), and they don't need some (frankly shakily curated) centralized list of our their crimes out there when no WP:RS does the same. They deserve to have it included in their own article, along with whatever else they did for better or worse, to be judged by the reader and not us as editors. They don't deserve to have a single moment in their life define them for anybody. Politicians just want to serve the public/their community; that goes from Jack Abramoff to Jimmy Carter. Some make the wrong decisions, some are awesome and just so amaz-- woops got off track. Anyways, I mentioned before about the "right to be forgotten", well it might not exist now, but that doesn't mean we don't have anything close to it. The Wikimedia Terms of Service are pretty clear, "Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include:

Violating the Privacy of Others

• Infringing the privacy rights of others under the laws of the United States of America or other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content);"

If you are curious about the subject, look into Privacy laws of the United States#Modern tort law because right there is, "Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable" Even if it inclusion on this list does not meet that standard, portraying them in violation of previously mentioned wikipedia policies that give list-included individuals WP:UNDUE weight against them is something that might be violating Wikimedia's ToS.

That, this, is not Wikipedia's purpose. We shouldn't centralize this type of list. It removes all context and makes every politician into a single event they must be noted by. It is a slippery slope that can just lead to a lot of trouble. That's how I see it, at least.

I am sorry, but "right to be forgotten" goes directly against the purpose of online encyclopedia. Saying that certain things need to be forgotten because they are "bad" or about influential people is WP:SOAP. My very best wishes (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly elected officials are not private citizens and therefore, do not have the same level of privacy rights in the laws and norms of the United States. Sorry, but your private life is not private when you step into the public arena and you know this before you place yourself up for election. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the article is too long is an interesting one. However this may be easily remedied by splitting this article to a state by state basis if required (e.g. List of Nebraskan politicians convicted of crimes) or possibly by time period (as the article is presently organized). A category is unable to convey the same information conveyed in a list.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we could do it that way. I'm changing my vote.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd agree with a seperate page for each state.Johnsagent (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is to classify them based on the type of crime. See Category:American politicians convicted of corruption and other categories. Compare also with List of people accused of bribery in Russia (cases of two people on the top were actually fabricated)... My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So far it is 22 in favour of keeping the article and 11 in favour of removing the article. Since the overwhelming majority support keeping this article can we not end this debate already? JimmyJoe87 (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how things work, and really, it seems to me that a lot of "keep" responses do not address many of Sandstein's objections. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for all the reasons above, and I think that Sandstein's objections have been covered quite well. We don't seem to like the idea of a 'right to privacy' in regards to crooked public politicians. And no, I don't think this article is too long, but I would support increasing this into 50 separate articles as mentioned and adding resignations to convictions as well.Wilmadon (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia offers no "right to be forgotten". All of the state and local politicians listed here are included because they have been convicted of crimes, accompanied by the reliable and verifiable sources to back up the claims. Barring the ability to wipe these sources off the face of the Earth, the ability to support these claims will exist as infinitum.
  From a matter of public policy, people hold elected officials up to a higher standard than they do gardeners or even journalists. No one claims that all politicians are crooks, but some are. The effort to liken this to "List of African Americans convicted of crime" is patently absurd.
  The list *is* incomplete. Wikipedia is fine with that. California has 40 million residents and Los Angeles about 4 million; New York has about 20 million and New York City about 8.5 million. List of people from California and List of people from Los Angeles are both incomplete, falling far short of the list under consideration; same with List of people from New York (state) and List of people from New York City (though I will note that in both cases, the city articles counter-intuitively and against all logic have more entries than the state lists). There are far fewer politicians in the United States since its formation than the number of people in either city or state; the number of convicted state and local politicians is orders of magnitude smaller than the pool of people in any of these places and is unlikely to become unmanageable in the years ahead. Should this list get too large, creating sub-lists by state would be the method to follow, emulating the rather logical approach to explain why there is no List of people from the United States.
  Per WP:LISTN, this is exactly the kind of topic that is appropriate for a standalone list and this search shows more than a handful of books devoted to the topic; similar searches of newspaper articles and scholarly works also turn up sources by the thousands.
  Appeals to WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE are similarly specious. This is an article that needs to be retained and -- sadly -- expanded. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 10 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 17:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B.L.U.E. Legend of Water[edit]

B.L.U.E. Legend of Water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find sources for this game. Coin945 (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also couldn't find much on it. GameRankings had nothing. Probably due to the game being released in Japan only, so may need some Japanese game experts to make sure there isn't much in english. - Japanese Wiki version also exists. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:49, 4 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 17:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kitty: Happy Party Pals[edit]

Hello Kitty: Happy Party Pals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe this fails WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could also not find much on this title. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:55, 4 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 17:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Nathan[edit]

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

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

Non-notable Media professional fails WP:GNG. Written like a puff piece. Cant seem to find any reliable sources on the subject. FITINDIA 11:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was just about to start nominating when you saved me the effort. The sources are either self-published, quotations in news articles, or press releases. I too couldn't find anything WP:RS. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A biography with non-encyclopaedic promotional text and a history of WP:COI editing. If the considerable ballast of PRspeak was removed, little would remain but the career CV of a man with a job. Occasional in-role citations are mundane and do not establish encyclopaedic notability for the subject. AllyD (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is written more as a Resume/CV of the individual and a clear case of WP:SPIP and fails to establish any notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 05:37, 4 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 17:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Dublin[edit]

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

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

WP:OR . Can find no usage of this outside wiki Gnevin (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom, the term "Trans-Dublin" doesn't seem to have any existence (and hence no coverage or RS) outside of Wikipedia. It would therefore seem to fail WP:GNG and WP:OR. Whatever content can be sourced could be readily merged to Dublin Suburban Rail or similar. Guliolopez (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as Hoax - Tagged as such - The whole system is called Dublin Area Rapid Transit - There is no "Trans Dublin" and this proves it. It's a clever hoax but still a hoax nonetheless. –Davey2010^Talk 13:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also just to note DART themselves make no mention of this supposed name and yet they run services on it!. –Davey2010^Talk 13:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. However, I'm not sure "blatant/deliberate hoax" is fair. Over the years I have seen other articles of this type which were (at best) OR and CRYSTAL in tone. Perhaps, I expect, prompted by green optimism. Though, perhaps, not by deliberate deception. Whatever the motivation, this should be deleted. IMO.Guliolopez (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed in all fairness the article's been here since 2007 so maybe it's not deliberate, I wonder whether at the time of creation whether "Trans-Dublin" was a short lived unreported name .... Seems odd that there's a route map as well as it being listed in nav boxes .... If it was a hoax surely no one would've gone to those sort of lengths to hide it as a hoax ? .... Seems too much effort ?, Dunno but nothing on Google confirms this ever was a thing. –Davey2010^Talk 14:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Original research. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 14:22, 9 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! ✉ 15:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PTGui[edit]

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

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

Written like an advertisement (violation of WP:NOTSOAP), does not have a single source and does not establish the notability.

I used Google Books to look into the two items listed in "Further reading" section. The subject of the article is briefly mentioned in page 76 of the first book and not mentioned in the second at all. In any case two sources are not "significant coverage", and while notability is required, it is not enough. WP:NOTSOAP is a fundamental policy; notability is just a guideline. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added two articles in published magazines as basic references. There are probably more of this kind in photography related magazines (will look into these, but this will take some time). I also removed unsourced advert-like content. Pavlor (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs improving, not deleting. It's a bit of a niche software but it's widely used by photographers who make panoramic images, so it's kind of notable, and at least as well known as Hugin (software). Depends who you ask, I suppose. I found several links to articles online: 1 2 3 4 5... nagualdesign 12:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - There is shallow coverage in a couple of books, newspapers, magazines and well-established blogs. The software has been around for quite a while in digital photography terms and is somewhat of a de facto standard for creating panoramic images. - MrX 13:25, 3 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! ✉ 15:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vlada Borovko[edit]

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

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

I prodded the article with the following rationale: "No indication of notability; sources are a bio from a creative agency, some other non-independent sources and a passing mention. Nothing better found via Google News." Philafrenzy de-prodded it and added another few passing mentions, performance reviews that devote maybe a single sentence to Borovko without covering her in any detail. Bringing it here for a community discussion. I don't think these additional references, or any further ones of the same kind that can be found, are helpful for establishing notability. Huon (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Borovko has sung Violetta in Traviata at Covent Garden, a lead role at one of the world's top houses. There is plenty of coverage of her work, but not all of it is English, such as the Oper Koln profile. And what about the full-length Royal Opera House interview? There is enough about her to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lead role at Covent Garden is enough for me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lead role at Covent Garden is enough to pass GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - can someone, maybe Joseph2302, please point out where WP:GNG says people are notable if they have sung a lead role at Covent Garden? The last time I checked, it spoke of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", exactly the thing this article lacks (her getting interviewed by an organization employing her is not "independent of the subject"). Huon (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NACTOR might be a more appropriate policy to cite, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The article notes Borovko's significant roles in Traviata, Norma and Oreste. Opera singers are actors too. Edwardx (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I cannot point to the policy asked for, but being called show stopping by The Guardian is good enough for me. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep numerous independent RS in Russian, several of which I have added. SusunW (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Many other British newspapers have covered her performances in some detail. Not everything shows up on Google searches.--Ipigott (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Although Huon has a valid point; simply having sung a lead role in one single instance sounds almost like WP:BLP1E (which is what the lede/article sounds like right now); although I think there are many sources that will establish her notability. Perhaps we could clarify the lede to something like "she came to spotlight" with that performance, and will play another lead role of Musetta in the upcoming production of La bohème at the Royal Opera House? Alex Shih (talk) 13:26, 5 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 17:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Arabic Culture[edit]

Council of Arabic Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage in RS. Existing is not notability. Saqib (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very small class of Pakistanis and Pakistani organizations gets significant coverage. Not getting significant coverage doesn't mean that they are not existing. --Ahmad.alhashimi (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Ahmad.alhashimi (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

@Ahmad.alhashimi: If the organisation have no significant coverage in even Urdu language RS, then no matter organisation exist or not, it doesn't merit a standalone WP entry. --Saqib (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]