< 12 May	14 May >

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thunderbolt-compatible devices[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY - list of mostly non-notable products without articles. List would not even be feasible to keep up to date, which it is not.

"Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted."

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Samsung devices —DIYeditor (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion - Master Of Ninja (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say the same if we had an article on all devices with USB. It's too vague a list and almost impossible to maintain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn984 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, etc. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 21 May 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 10:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Court Square Place[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original discussion was closed as "no consensus" in 2006. I think it's time to revisit this. Two local-interest newspaper articles at the time the building was built, with nothing since and nothing outside the New York Area, does not constitute encyclopedic notability.

As a side note, "tallest building constructed in the area since 1989" is one of the most meaningless claims to notability I've ever seen; if that constituted notability we'd have an article on every McMansion in every county in the US. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROTM. Not notable considering the context of it being in New York City. Would be notable if it were some town in the middle of Kansas. Acnetj (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is in Long Island City, not Manhattan.

~~Keep~~ This building is very historic being the tallest building in the area (Long Island City, not Manhattan) for many years, just as the Key Tower in Seattle or the Russ Building in San Francisco. The article does need re-write and could use a photo. However, that doesn't mean that it should be deleted because it's not in the best possible shape. Keep in mind that Wikipedia allows football player articles even if they only played one or two games or if someone played just one game of the Yugoslav Basketball League so the tallest building in Long Island City for many years is not unreasonable. Cowdung Soup (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any actual in-depth independent sources that might verify that this is a historically notable building in the context of WP:GNG or WP:N? I could care less about the state of the article; if I'd found any sources worth using I would've added them to the article instead of AfDing it, but I didn't. "Tallest building in the area" is totally meaningless as a claim to notability unless there's some independent sources that discuss that as being a notable quality. Your examples, Key Tower and the Russ Building, both have reliable sources that demonstrate their notability in that context. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some confusion. The Citicorp Tower (One Court Square) across the street is taller and older. That building is not in dispute. The one in dispute is built in 2006 and is shorter and far less remarkable. So it is not historic by any means, or that it was ever the tallest in the area. Acnetj (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the facts but agree with the conclusion. I mistakenly thought this building was the old building which used to be tall for the neighborhood (but would be short in 2018). That building was torn down and probably replaced by Court Square Place. That building may have been the tallest building in the area until 1989, then surpassed by the huge 50 story Citicorp building. It was torn down and the 16 story building built. If information can be found on that old building, it is likely article material but the replacement described in this article is nothing special (and would be a delete vote, in my opinion). I have stricken my original "keep" vote, above). Cowdung Soup (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Nothing to establish notability. WP:MILL 16-story building in greater NYC. MB 02:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this building was a pioneer in an area previously low-scale and is now high-scale. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to substantiate this. There are two sources in the article, the first sounds like a press release and the second is a NYTimes search which is a collection of articles that seem to have minor mention of this building only. Not enough the WP:GNG MB 19:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to pass [[WP:GNG]. wikitigresito (talk) 06:52, 21 May 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 10:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pip Kembo[edit]

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

This article doesn't adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. The subject in question of this article pertains to a low-profile figure, without quality secondary references to back up the claims this article made. Pip Kembo is an employee and a non-executive producer working for Artist Publishing Group, and hasn't achieved eminence in his field yet to be seen as a public figure. While Pip Kembo is working as a producer in Los Angeles, USA, his contributions hasn't been noticed by any mainstream American media or publications, hence most of the references made in this article coming from local Zimbabwean websites or his employer's website. Regarding the status of Pip Kembo as a public figure, he hasn't achieved national nor internet recognition as of now. He has approximately 1200 followers on twitter and 2600 on instagram which calls into question his relevance as an entertainer. Furthermore, the author wrote his own biography on this article, which brings into question its partiality. The page comes off more as a piece of self promotion than a serious topic about a recognized public figure in the field of entertainment. ExposingScrubs (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Personale (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little strange nomination that suggests that the nominator somehow knows the subject. However, notability shall be determined based on the article. Considering the tone, the accusation of COI written/edited might be true. More important is that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability according to WP:GNG and google does not produce anything beyond short mentions in articles about others. wikitigresito (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three (Canadian universities)[edit]

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

The creator of this article appears to have also created the term "Big Three". The only source cited in the article to actually use the term "big three" is the first source cited, a blog post. After creating the term "big three", the author then goes on to provide a history of these three universities, along with their rankings. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominator said, there was only one reference provided in that article that uses the phrase "big three," and its from a post on the College Confidential forum (not an encyclopedic source). There also is no postsecondary association known as the "big three" (like Canada's U15, or Australia's Group of Eight). I don't even think "big three" is a thing, colloquially speaking. Leventio (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator here. This name is pretty commonly used on college forums and Canadian media. Especially commonly used on sites like College Confidential, YConic, Reddit, etc. and I thought it might have been a bit spammy to link all of them. I originally created the page but didn't know how to rename it -- just figured it out just now. Also on Canadian news sites (Globe & Mail, TorStar & National Post), the three schools have been referenced as the Big Three and Canada's Top Three for the last decade in passing -- "Canada's top three" have been what I've been able to find within news of the last few months. (It's not easy to dig through news articles month by month just to find this term, given that Google ranks the news chronologically). Anyway, I updated the name to what the cited articles use -- "Canada's top three"; I've seen a lot more but again, they mentions the name in passing and I'm not sure how to incorporate it. Any input is appreciated. U423310 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Leventio, Big Three is not a formal organisation, such as U15, in the same sense that Big Four accounting firms aren't an organisation. It is a colloquial name for the three schools in Canada that are often referenced together in regards to ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U423310 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any reliable sources using that term, nor have I ever heard it "in the wild" myself. "Canada's top three" is not the same thing, nor is it any more significant or noteworthy than "Canada's top ten". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Big Three" or "Top Three" are neologisms or convenient verbal shorthand for describing three Canadian universities. None of the current sources discuss this as a topic. There is no significant coverage of this topic in independent, reliable sources that I can see. The sourcing now in the article is terrible. We've got blogs, Reddit, and primary university sources. All the material about the history of the three universities is extraneous and irrelevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, you can find mentions of a top three, a top four, a top five, a top six, a top ten, a top twenty Canadian universities, and so on. I found all of these phrases by searching online, and none of them are notable. There's no particular reason to stop at three. The most common phrase seems to be "top 10 Canadian universities" with "top 3 Canadian universities" a relatively uncommon phrase. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hey sorry for commenting twice. I found an article dating back to 1945, having President of UBC announcing that UBC joins the big three in the headline -- I included a photo in the history section. I believe this warrants reconsideration. U423310 (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, the article you found is a primary source WP:PRIMARY. Also, the phrase only occurs in the headline, not in the text, and headlines are not usually considered accurate. This is certainly not a WP:RS. Secondly, it refers to UBC being second or third in terms of total enrolment, which is not how you are representing the meaning of the term in the WP article, suggesting this use of the term is irrelevant. Thirdly, did you also search for "big two" or "big four" or any other phrase involving a "big" number of Canadian universities? Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

primary sources not verboten ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Primary sources not verboten for supplementary verification of stray facts unimpacting upon notability, such as a company's name and address or a person's educational background, after notability has already been fully covered off by WP:GNG-eligible reliable sources. Primary sources are verboten as support for notability in and of themselves, however. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term 'big three' appears to be that of the point of view of the article creator. Otherwise sources don't establish any notability of this distinction, as most of them are unreliable. Ajf773 (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not going to gainsay that those three universities are Canada's three largest and most prominent, but I am going to gainsay that this is the standard or reliably sourceable term used to express their trinitarianness as a concept — usage on "College Confidential, Quora, Reddit, YConic, Student Awards Forum", etc., is not reliable sourcing for the purposes of Wikipedia content. I can think of no significant or reliably sourced context in which these three are isolated as a group separately from the rest of Canada's most prestigious and elite but technically smaller universities, such as Queen's and Dalhousie and Laval. If there's a Canadian "Ivy League" at all, it's the "big three" and the three others that I just named in the preceding sentence, and I know of no context where the "big three" are isolated as a separate grouping in their own right from the other three. Bottom line, this is original research that synthesizes a bunch of statistics — it is true that stats can be found to support that these are the three big kahunae, but those don't reify "Big Three" into a name for them as a group. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harris (North Carolina politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, created as a redirect to an election article in 2016 and then spun back out as a standalone BLP last week, of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- people get Wikipedia articles by winning the election and thereby holding the seat, not just by being candidates. But this offers no strong evidence that he has preexisting notability for any other reason. So this needs to be either deleted, or reverted back to the original redirect -- he'll qualify to have a Wikipedia article if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a strong or substantive reason why he'd get one just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been very involved in nominating articles like this one for deletion. I created this one because I do believe that the news coverage of him and his life is significant and has persisted over time, including coverage of his time as president of the Baptist State Convention and involvement in leading the charge to pass Amendment One, so that he does pass WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject certainly passes GNG – beyond that, he's won an election: the primary against the incumbent, Pittenger. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat means the general election. Being Rep-elect would pass WP:NPOL, winning the primary does not meet that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Winning a primary does not pass WP:NPOL. He has to win the general election in November to become notable as a politician, and absent that he gets an article only if he can be demonstrated as already having cleared WP:GNG for other reasons before he even stood as a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the Republican nominee for Congress in a largely Republican district. He may will win, and that's not idle speculation. JTRH (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a nominee is not a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. He has to either already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy itself, or win the general election in November. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Muboshgu - being prominently involved in politics for years and defeating an incumbent in the primary should be enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, defeating an incumbent in a primary absolutely should not be enough, and nothing stated in this article suggests a level of "prominence" in politics that exceeds that of any other non-winning candidate. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a valuable article to refer to, and has plenty of reliable sources. econterms (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - feels WP:TOOSOON to me. There are a couple good articles about him so it's closer to a keep than most of the ones I'd vote for, but all of the articles are either directly related to his candidacy or are not sufficient for notability (the mention in the AP article, for instance.) The problem with political candidates are most articles about them are WP:MILL unless they are elected, and I don't see anything here that's not a run of the mill candidate article. SportingFlyer talk 20:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He unseated a three-term congressman in the primary - and has been the only candidate to do so thus far this cycle. Roger Marshall (politician) (who held no high office at the time) was created the day after he defeated incumbent Tim Huelskamp in August 2016. I grant you Kansas's primaries are much later in the election cycle, but that isn't really what we're debating. I can't cite any Wikipedia policy here, per se, but I would at least keep it until the November elections, after which this article can be deleted should he lose. Woko Sapien (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument is notability is not temporary: either he's notable now and always will be, or he's not yet notable. SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My argument was more towards recent precedent, for what it's worthWoko Sapien (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- just because he has a good chance of winning the general election does not mean he passes WP:NPOL. All the coverage of him is associated with the election. If he wins in November, the article can be recreated. I would even support userfying the article for now.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Rusf10, may I suggest you remember several important principles, when participating in Afd?
- Our decisions as to whether to keep or delete articles is supposed to be based on the inherent notability of the topic, not the current state of the article. A cursory look at the article's references may suggest ALL media coverage about Harris is about him as a political candidate. That is why you really should conduct your own web search, if you want to leave an informed opinion.
- Afd robots are just stupid robots, and, when the article title is disambiguated you have to roll your own web search. I "Mark+Harris"+"North+Carolina"+-primary&oq="Mark+Harris"+"North+Carolina"+-primary&gs_l=tablet-gws.3...42482.48033.0.48873.9.9.0.0.0.0.100.734.8j1.9.0....0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..0.0.0....0.A5Nuaj-d2k4 "Mark Harris" "North Carolina" -primary when searching for "Mark Harris" "North Carolina" gave me too much reporting on his recent political campaigns. Result? Lots of coverage not related to his recent campaign... Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Individuals who don't measure up to GNG can nevertheless merit an article under the supplementary notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. And the opposite is also true. Political candidates -- individuals who don't meet POLITICIAN, can measure up to our inclusion standards when they measure up to WP:GNG. Here are links that show Harris measures up to GNG [1],[2]. Geo Swan (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those articles are about him — they both just namecheck his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else, which means they do not aid in getting him over a notability criterion. GNG is passed by coverae about the person, not by coverage of other things which happens to mention his existence. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to draft. Based on what I'm reading here, he is likely to win the general election and would then qualify for a page. It sounds rather bureaucratic to delete a page now, when there is a good chance that we will want it back in less than six months. If he doesn't win in November and doesn't acquire lasting notability in another way by then, delete away. Vadder (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every single candidate in any election could always make the exact same claim that we have to keep it because we might have to recreate it in six months if they win. Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions — we do not keep candidate articles pending the election results and then delete them only if they lose, we wait until they win before we start the article at all. Administrators, further, have the power to restore deleted articles after the fact if there are valid reasons to do that, so the idea that the original work would be lost if he wins is not a reason why it would have to be kept in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per most arguments above, potentially revisit later in the year if he is not elected Guyb123321 (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the two above arguments are a classic WP:TOOSOON. Once you're notable, you're always notable - there's no revisiting in a few months if a notability-conferring event triggers or not. SportingFlyer talk 16:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a perennial candidate. FWIW, I'm a Democrat. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Running twice does not make him a perennial candidate, and even if it did being a perennial candidate is not a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- political candidate who nevertheless measures up to GNG, as per above. Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Every candidate in every election everywhere would always "measure up to GNG", without exception, if the amount of coverage shown here were all it took. Routine campaign-related coverage, in the district's own local media where such coverage is merely expected to exist, is not enough to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate per se — candidates need to be shown as special cases to qualify for Wikipedia articles without winning the seat first, not just to be referenced to the exact same volume and depth and range of coverage that every single candidate could always show. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - People who win a Victoria Cross, get a knighthood, or hold national office, are exceptions. They can have their notability established by "one event". Most individuals have their notability established by weighing and adding up various factors that establish notability, none of which would be sufficient to establish that individual's notability, all by itself. So, it is unfair and unreasonable to argue that this particular factor, or that particular factor, falls short of establishing notability.
    The nominator claimed ALL the references out there were about his participation in the campaign. The Reuters article, from 2012, has six of 33 paragraphs talk about Harris. Yes, the article is not about him, but 15-20% is not a mere passing mention.
    Those references establish that Harris's press coverage does not all revolve around his political campaign. Geo Swan (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say anything about "one event" whatsoever. Winning a Victoria Cross, getting a knighthood or holding national office are not "exceptions" to anything I said — such people are notable because they receive ongoing coverage in a context that cleanly passes the people will still be looking for this article ten years from now test. There is no such thing, for instance, as a holder of national office who wins the election but somehow fails to ever actually do anything in office or get media coverage for it — so the person is not "notable for the single event of winning an election", they are notable for the ongoing event of holding an office of permanent encyclopedic interest. The notability test is not "does this person happen to be getting some news coverage today in a context that isn't inherently notable otherwise?" — it is "will people still be looking for this article in 2028 and beyond, because their notability exists in a forever context rather than a temporarily newsy context?" Officeholders pass that test, while candidates normally do not except in extraordinary circumstances which haven't been demonstrated here. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current sourcing of the article appears to satisfy WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary sources. If I search for his name and look through the results, I can see there are many more articles that discuss him, including several non-local or national news sources.[3][4][5][6] The widespread national coverage indicates this candidate and this race are notable. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:15, 20 May 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. Clear consensus for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

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

Almost entirely unsourced, about several unrelated topics:

The first part of the Human behavior section could be part of one or more standalone articles about mistakes. (A move from Mistake may be required.) However, it is almost completely unreferenced and may consist of original research.
The last subsection of Human behavior contains no content and instead directs the reader to Medical error.
The first part of the Science and engineering section is already covered at Observational error and two related topics.
The second part of Science and engineering should have a standalone article at Design error.
The last paragraph of Science and engineering and the entirety of the Numerical analysis section are already covered at Approximation error.
The Cybernetics section does not explain what the term means in cybernetics.
The Biology section is a duplicate of Mutation. Other types of error not mentioned in the article also exist, such as chromosomal abnormalities.
The Philately section is a duplicate of Errors, freaks, and oddities.
The Law section needs to be merged into the standalone article, Error (law).
The Stock market section is a duplicate of Fat-finger error.
The Governmental policy section could have a standalone article or be merged with Intelligence cycle management, if it could be properly sourced.
The Numismatics section is covered at Mint-made error.

Additionally, Error (disambiguation) should be moved over this title because there is likely no primary topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the best of articles, but it is the primary topic. Bands, albums, songs and fictional characters are not. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An orientation survey article is needed for a broad topic like this. From here the reader should be able to access the more specialized discussion articles, which would obviously have the cites lacking here. Don't take away the umbrella article. Why should I have to dance between the raindrops to get an idea of what 'wet' means? Shenme (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BROADCONCEPT. Error has meaning in a lot of different fields, and describing that in a single article is better than having a disambiguation page in place at the base title. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BROADCONCEPT. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a second curious nomination, although not poor enough to warrant a speedy close I fancy. BTW, per above, broad concept applies. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:SNOW. The literature is so vast you should be able to find something to add. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. Geo Swan (talk) 17:19, 20 May 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tinapa Shopping Complex[edit]

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

Sounds like an advertisement in Wikipedia for a run of the mill shopping center. There has been a tag for a decade (10 years) asking for citations. There is not a single reference. 10 years is long enough to wait for a reliable sourced reference. Cowdung Soup (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like an advertisement. It's gone unsourced for so long because there is no reliable third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the websites are travel forums, there is no coverage about the subject by reliable sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced puffery advertisement. The article is out of date, describing an at that time unrealised project, and even though it would appear to now be built a (very quick) glance for sources comes up with nothing appropriate. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article should have been part of Tinapa Resort. No independent sources, basically everything relies on what search from "Tinapa" brings up. Edidiong (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ROTM mall, no evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH as well as WP:GNG. The resort page itself is also problematic. All advertising in nature --Quek157 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SNOW, WP:ADVERT, WP:MILL. Pick one. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 20 May 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 10:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The God File[edit]

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

Article, written more like something approaching an original research critical essay rather than a proper encyclopedia article, about a novel whose author does not have a WP:BLP, and which does not have a strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:NBOOK. As always, every literary award that exists at all is not an automatic free pass that exempts a novel from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media -- the extent to which a literary award counts as a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which media cover the granting of that award as news. But the only source here for the "Independent Publisher Book Award" is the award's own self-published website about itself, not independent third party coverage in media, and there are no other valid sources being cited to get it over WP:GNG any other way: the only other citation present here at all is a book review on a user-generated public relations blog for independent authors, not a real recognized source of professional critical reviews. And overall, the article is written more like a critical essay, possibly trending into original research given the lack of quality sourcing to support the motifs and themes and character analysis. The sourcing here simply isn't cutting the mustard, and nothing stated in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not take the lack of a Wikipedia article about the author to be evidence in favor of deletion. However, the nominator's point about the minor award is apt. An award that is not discussed by reliable independent sources is also not evidence of notability. The lack of professional reviews is the most important reason to delete, and amateur analysis by Wikipedia editors cannot make up for that shortcoming. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created and developed by two WP:SPAs to summarise the contents of a novel. The book was published by MacAdam/Cage and republished as an e-book by Dzanc Books, indicating some selectivity. However I don't see the brief Kirkus Review note and the already discussed review on "The BookReporter" site as sufficient for WP:NBOOK criterion 1, or the 2003 Independent Publisher Book Award as sufficient for criterion 2. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, as above, the bookreporter, kirkus reviews, and award aren't enough, a gsearch has brought up nothing else. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAgree that this seems like original research.--Jaldous1 (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think I've seen enough. I wanted a bit more discussion about sources, but I think it's clear that more discussion probably isn't going to help things along, and the atmosphere of the discussion is devolving. The consensus is that significant coverage exists about this topic in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Mz7 (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1Lib1Ref[edit]

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

Unless and until, Google is playing up, I (with with my limited access to certain American libraries), am not seeing an iota of decent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.

Some of the current sources (including ) belong(s) to WMF and whilst providing accurate information about the event, are non-independent and consequently do not lead to passage of any notability. A blog source, though hosted on diglib.org is written by a Wikipedian, to promote the event and whilst usable, fails to establish the rigor of passage of notability. Two of the remaining sources, from library-associations, are (largely) event-circulars which fails to prove anything beyond the existence of the event. One is a library-blog covering about how a few enthusiasts did participate in it, which seems to have been written after some gentle prodding by the organizers.......

Barring a lone NPR source, I did not manage to retrieve anything (other than unreliable blogzines et al) that covers the event significantly and that proves the notability of the event beyond the circle of WP editors.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets GNG; the nom needs to find a better search engine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, you ought to do better.Sources, please.......~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is notable and significant events affecting it are notable. It's not unreasonable for an encyclopedia to lean towards covering its own history, as long as it does so in a neutral and verifiable way. --agr (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm notable.....My parents are notable.....All the teachers who taught me in my montessori are notable....My brother's would-be grand-childrens' spouses are notable....Are you fucking serious?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, we can certainly cover our own history, as much as we like, in the Wikipedia namespace.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Winged Blades of Godric: I get that you disagree, but it is unnecessary to use aggressive language in order to make your point. Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while borderline, there's enough coverage and/or mentions out there for me. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] (Also, there's nothing in policy that prevents us from covering notable on-wiki events.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed, that's a straw-man.Unless and until you wish to state that you are in favor of bending our notability guidelines for covering on-wiki events, your last line is nonsensical.And, well routine mentions of an event do not make notability.But, then again, it's insanely difficult to delete any article about WP from WP, provided iy has garnered some specks of scattered mentions here and there.03:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs)
Keep Not that super-notable subject, but I believe this is notable more than thousands of professional footballers stub that we host. Also found this Magazine's coverage substantive. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You have been a pretty decent participant at AfDs to know that other stuff/crap exists and that it's almost always a non-argument.And, we surely disagree about the significance of the source as to lending the subject a credible passage of GNG.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could this be a redirect to the libraries wikiproject? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not having continued coverage. All sources can be construed as announcing a near-future 1Lib1Ref (and maybe mentioning the last one), and very short-term post-event coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 13:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Speedy without prejudice...... per WP:SNOWBALL. VitalPower | talk 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: The discussion is definitely leaning towards keep based on a head-count of voters, but I would appreciate just a bit more discussion centered around the sources available to solidify a consensus. Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two sources, one from a local news coverage. Getting local news coverage for an international event makes it more significant. Emass100 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just want to ping Merrilee, Ocaasi, and Sadads. They have likely seen this discussion but abstained from participating thus far (wisely, IMO), but also probably have the best sense of how much coverage there has been of 1lib1ref. As such, it would probably help discussion to know if there sources that Ed, et al. missed so far in this discussion? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes their views more important than the views of people who commented above? –Ammarpad (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammarpad: I created the campaign :P I have been watching the page for a while -- and would argue that it's notable -- its increasingly showing up in long-term scholarly pieces about the relationship of libraries and Wikipedia (see for example this Google search and discussion of the campaign is showing up in a number of more long-term publications (i.e. this coverage. However, because of my Conflict of Interest -- I am not going to place a vote in the concensus. Sadads (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to give the impression their opinions were "more important." They have the good sense not to jump in with a !vote here, but as people directly involved with 1lib1ref, I figured they may be able to save the rest of us some time/effort as we try to search for sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 14 May 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 per WP:SNOW. – Joe (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Cheney (scientist)[edit]

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

Seems like a run-of-the-mill researcher with no evidence of meeting WP:NACADEMIC criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Member of National Academy is an immediate pass of WP:PROF#C3 (unsurprisingly she also passes #C1), and nominating a member for deletion marks such a total lack of understanding of academic notability as to render the nominator unqualified for such edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:PROF#C3. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:SNOWBALL Case, per WP:PROF#C3. VitalPower | talk 20:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep with 32,000 cites on GS. I suggest consideration of a ban on this editor making further AfD nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
keep i got lost in reading her multiple achievements and the list of publications is impressive. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without any doubt, as a member of the National Academy of Sciences. I advise the nominator to refrain from any further ridiculous, disruptive and time-wasting AfD nominations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How ever could there be any doubt about this?--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep with a prediction of WP:SNOW. Minimal googling revealed article in NYT citing her (added to article) and a recent one in Smithsonian Magazine.^[1] Also, there should be a disambiguation page, because currently Dorothy Cheney goes to an article about a tennis player. Also, her husband and collaborator, also in PNAS, deserves an article of his own, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Abhat, Divya (February 28, 2017). "Baboons Are Ruthless Reproducers". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved May 13, 2018. For decades Cheney has documented infanticide in baboons in Botswana, where the behavior accounts for at least 50 percent of all infant deaths.

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 10:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NExpress[edit]

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

An article about a system combining the libraries of several colleges that appears to not itself be notable. I can find no coverage outside of websites belonging to it or its member colleges. Fails WP:GNG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any information on any of this, their own website is hacked/unrelated to the topic by this point. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. There's no real consensus here, but moving this to draft seems like a reasonable compromise, and WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jalen McDaniels[edit]

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

A search engine returns results primarily related to his statistics, plus two sources mentioning the draft. Per WP:NCOLLATH, a college athlete is only notable if they have gained significant attention from the media or have won a significant award, and I'm not seeing that either of these is the case. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep In addition to the sources that mention him declaring for the draft, I was able to find this, this, and this. Not a ton of coverage, but probably enough to pass GNG barely. His brother is a top recruit btw. If the consensus here is to delete, I propose userfying the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I have would support moving to draft/userspace as well. While I maintain that he isn't currently notable, Wikipedia has lower standards for professional players. I imagine he will be notable in the near future; this article is just too soon. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above. There are just enough independent sources to justify keeping. With his entry into the draft, he is likely to have many more in the near future anyway.--TM 10:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not even played in one professional game and his collegiate career is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft per TOOSOON. Hasn't played a minute on the professional level. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial cpverage in reliable independent sources. Was a star in high school. Has made some waves in college. And is expected be drafted by a pro team. All covered extensively. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space/draftify - I was going to be a weak keep but saw this in the paper[[13]]. From the article, he's a skinny 6-foot-10 forward who averaged 10.5 points and 7.5 rebounds last season, has started just 21 college games, weighs under 190 pounds, wasn’t named to the first, second or third all-conference teams in the middling Mountain West, wasn’t among the 69 players (including four from the Mountain West) invited to the NBA Draft combine in Chicago next week and doesn’t appear in any mock drafts. It's WP:TOOSOON, but I suspect that whatever happens on May 30th at the draft declaration deadline, he'll get more coverage and we can revisit. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:BLPDELETE and as a WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanction, this article is speedily deleted and salted, and may not be recreated unless an admin determines, via WP:AFC or otherwise, that a draft exists that meets minimal levels of WP:BLP-compliant sourcing and editorial competence.

As I indicated in my first speedy deletion of this article, a WP:BLP article with contentious material requires proper sourcing in the form of footnotes. It is insufficient to just throw a pile of external links at the bottom of the article; rather, any sources must be cited in a footnote adjacent to the material they back up; otherwise readers have no realistic chance to verify whether any given statement is true. See generally WP:V, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes.

This is not a determination about notability, and if the article is recreated, it may still be brought back to AfD for reasons of notability or other reasons. Sandstein 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Sadler[edit]

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

A clear case of WP:BLP1E, that event being a provocative comment about John McCain in a White House meeting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true that many people first heard of her because of her comment. However, she was a regular reporter of Bloomberg for almost 3 years. Other reporters are allowed articles (for example, see Scott Baker or Rich Benjamin). Just because she put her foot in her mouth does not disqualify her. Another reason for the article is that there is widespread reporting over many, many countries. That makes her notable because of lots of reliable sources covering her. That makes it 2 reasons. Finally, 1 event is permitted (even though Sadler is a 2 event person). Look at one event people, like Lenny Skutnik, Marwan al-Shehhi, Yavor Hristov, Anna Harrison and Amanda Knox. Finally, this article is not an attack on Trump so Trump supporters don't have to try to delete this article. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is substantially more to this person than the one obnoxious statement. If there is then we need to see that added to the article ASAP, and with solid RS references. If not, and we have an article about the Trump camp's feud with McCain, then maybe it can be mentioned there, very briefly, but certainly not in a separate BLP. We don't want a separate BLP for every minor participant in the myriad of undignified feuds that seems to comprise a large part of American "politics" these days. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was a moderately well known (not hugely famous) Bloomberg reporter for nearly 3 years. Other reporters qualify for Wikipedia articles, even local ones. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a great example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Does not pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly exceeds WP:GNG. I have seen over 60 citations on her. That well exceeds GNG. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is much more to WP:GNG than the number of citations. SportingFlyer talk 18:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. The citations must be reliable, like the New York Times and BBC. She has those. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:46, 13 May 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 10:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Albert Crampton[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Currently unsourced with only one link on the entire page, and other searches bring up very little, or references to different doctors of the same name (not the same since they lived in the mid-20th century.) Also fails WP:NPOL on the mayoral position. SportingFlyer talk 17:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Per nomination. VitalPower | talk 19:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unless I'm missing something here, the article doesn't even make sense. Why would the Internal Revenue Bureau have a chief chemist?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the IRS probably had a chief chemist to look into trariffs on chmeicals. That doesn't make him pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 20 May 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) — F R ⁺ 04:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Ranken[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her work with Test Dept and DV8 would both swing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Associate artist" at Royal Shakespeare Company recognises "artists who have made an outstanding contribution to the life and reputation of our work", and widespread other coverage, some under full name of "Elizabeth Ranken". PamD 11:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as above Wpgbrown (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has been substantially improved since nomination and is now supported by several secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 17 May 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. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shri mamasaheb deshpande[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG article created by a WP:SPA editor. All the sources are affiliated and nothing of interest found in a WP:BEFORE search Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 13 May 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 10:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chihiro Hara[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions. The awards listed are for the videos Hara appeared in and / or are scene related. Being ranked in a distributor's poll is not a valid claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikitigresito (talk) 07:11, 21 May 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 10:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Saturation[edit]

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

Non-notable band. The article was crated as a band article in 2013, coincidentally at the time they released their album. There has been on edit to text and no assertion of notability has been made since. Emeraude (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 20 May 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. J04n(talk page) 14:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Harrison, Lord of Gobion's Manor[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy forum. This article refers to an individual who is wholly non notable. Contrary to what the article says, he was not Lord Harrison or a noble, probably a mere gentleman. Some of his descendants may well be very notable, but he does not "inherit" notability from them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERIT. Apparently a distant relative of Benjamin Harrison, but he has no independent notability. Gobion's Manor doesn't appear to be significant either. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; lacks significant coverage. Just a genealogy entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:34, 14 May 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 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Kern Golf Course[edit]

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

Not notable public golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:20, 20 May 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chongqing No.68 Middle School[edit]

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

Non notable middle school. Unsourced and no claims of significance or importance. Was first PRODed but redirected per policy recommendations to its locality, but the redirect was reverted without discussion by the the creator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Middle school with no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no claim to notability. Also, WP:MACHINETRANSLATION as the exact text is obtainable from the Chinese language Wikipedia. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or, if the creator proises not to pish about with it, redirect per WP:ATD. But if they won't, we have to remove the opportunity to do so. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, probably speedy material both G11 and G12, per Jack's finding that it's an exact machine translation from Chinese Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only marginal claim to notability is statement "one of the ten most influential middle schools in Chongqing", but claim of being influential isn't demonstrated nor qualified as to how it's influential. Regardless of quality of the claim, the entire article is unsourced, failing to substantiate the claim. The article for the city also lists three middle schools (including this one) in section labelled "Notable middle school and high schools", but notability is likewise unsourced there, so if article is deleted, recommend removing mention from that article as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have supported REDIRECT but Since the REDIRECT per policy has been made into article again hence suggesting delete. Notability not eshtablished and unable to find it either. --DBigXray 16:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable middle school. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW VitalPower | talk 20:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - read through the Chinese wikipedia article as a native Chinese reader and speaker, that article if using English wikipedia policies will be a straight G11. --Quek157 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my reading of the Chinese one is on the zh, zh-ch (classical one) if applied here is an A1. --Quek157 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 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 Make into disambiguation page. Sandstein 10:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrian Shepherd[edit]

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

This is just a former name of the Šarplaninac (and Karst Shepherd) dog breeds. I see no reason to have two articles on the same dog breed just because the official name has been changed. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont agree with the NOM to delete this, the reason is not sufficient for a deletion. After an independent careful searching on WP:RS as well as sites, I have come to the concluson that Illyrian Shepherd is an ancestor to the 2 distinct modern breeds Šarplaninac and Karst Shepherd based on this and Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI) data. The difference is nomencalture of the last two dogs is simply based on the region where they developed. Šarplaninac in Yugoslavia and Karst Shepherd in Slovenia. These 2 modern breeds are notable and distinct article on their own, per the WP:RS FCI. The common name of the dog breed In Yugoslavia is Šarplaninac. FCI Šarplaninac [14] and [15] And FCI Karst Shepherd in Slovenia. So I suggest creating a Disambiguation at this location with redirects to Šarplaninac and Karst Shepherd. Illyrian Shepherd is a candidate for redirect, but both the articles can be the destination based on the country, since it is an ancestor to both these breeds. I propose creating a Disambiguation page on the current location of Illyrian Shepherd

Illyrian Shepherd in Yugoslavia REDIRECTS to Šarplaninac
Illyrian Shepherd in Slovenia REDIRECTS to Karst Shepherd--DBigXray 16:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Slovenia was, in fact, part of Yugoslavia. I basically agree with you, but the wording should be changed. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since FCI calls these 2 names, different breed both with a common ancestor, so the 2 new articles should be treated as distinct, so this is no longer a debate. As regard to Illyrian Shepherd, I think disambiguate is the best course of action. Vanjagenije So what is your proposal ? wording should be changed to what ? --DBigXray 23:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposal to turn the article into a disambiguation page, exact wording can be decided later. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the agreement. Yes, I am open to any copy edit of the phrase in my proposal. --DBigXray 21:44, 15 May 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) — F R ⁺ 04:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mall of Switzerland[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quick serch on Google shows notability. --VitalPower | talk 12:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been trying to improve the article by cleaning it up and adding sources. The sources are not very reliable, but they show that the mall is notable enough that websites other than their personal one mention the mall.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 13:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Performed Google Search. Covered by Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Blick, Swissinfo and Radio Pilatus. I think, It meets the notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With 150 stores the second biggest in Switzerland. Even small malls like Richti Wallisellen exist on Wikipedia. Must be improved. --Netpilots (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a shopping mall. More appropriate for travel guides and advertising circulars. Not really suitable for an encyclopedia. Cowdung Soup (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of just Shopping Malls in Wikipedia. Most Malls are much smaller than the Mall of Switzerland. This is one more reason for the notability. --Netpilots (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly not the best article ever, but in my opinion it's notable enough for Wikipedia. The "biggest shopping mall in Central Switzerland" seems like an important topic to me, and there are many, many shopping mall articles that exist that seem to be a lot less notable. And if you search harder across the Internet, you'll notice that there are in fact a lot of independent sources about this mall.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 22:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meet with notability but stub needed. There are lots of evidence I founded on Google News. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biggest mall in central Switzerland is evidence of notability. As others have pointed out, very in-depth coverage exists. And nominating this article for AfD within an hour of creation [16] is bad form. --Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 16 May 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/merge Rezaeinejad to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, no consensus on Hosseinpour and Shahriari, default to keep. Though there were many different outcomes proposed for each of these articles, they could still be divided into two basic camps: the keep/rename camp (since the vast majority of keep voters appeared at least open to a re-naming, especially in the case of Rezaeinejad), and the delete/merge camp (since the delete voters all seemed to be of the view that the content could appropriately be contained in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists).

In the case of Razaeinejad, only one participant advocated an outright keep, and did so using a WP:OSE argument. Four more advocated a stand-alone article dealing with Rezaeinejad's death, and one of those was only weakly. In contrast, five participants advocating deletion, and a further four advocated merging (and, as noted, in the circumstances of this AFD, those options amounted to much the same thing. There was a very clear consensus (with only one dissenter) that Darioush Rezaeinejad should not continue to exist in its current form - the only real question was whether the death should be covered in a stand-alone article, or in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. In the end, the numbers (combined with User:k.e.coffman's clarification that their !vote for the former option was a weak one) are sufficient to give the latter option a claim to consensus.

Hosseinpour and Shahriari can be dealt with together, since every single participant advocated the same solution for both of them. The count on those is six advocating keeping, and seven advocating deletion or merging (with User:Clarityfiend expressing no opinion). The majority of the arguments on both sides—with the exception of User:Huldra's on the one side and arguably User:Johnpacklambert's on the other—focused primarily on the application of the WP:GNG. In my view, it is not possible to say that a consensus has emerged on the treatment of these two articles. Steve Smith (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darioush Rezaeinejad[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL / WP:BIO1E. Dead 35 year old post-graduate student and alleged member of Iranian nuclear program. Please see the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan which closed as a redirect to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - following which this was redirected as well. There is no coverage of this individual of not besides his death and circumstances leading to his death. His death is already amply covered in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - not much to merge, and topic-wise these deaths are treated as a group, and not individually. I am also nominating two other similar individuals. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BIO1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete per nomination since subject's lacking independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

If the article changes title to Assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad I'd comfortably change my opinion to a "Weak keep" since almost all sources are about the event. As an individual the subject is not independently notable. -The Gnome (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already cover this assassination in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - at quite some length.Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was not bundled together with an article about terrorist incidents because the victim was not a terrorist and his assassination was a case of mistaken identity. This seems to be the case, per sources, with the subject of the contested article: The victim was falsely assumed by the assassins to be Darioush Rezaei; Mossad subsequently claimed that the killed man was indeed working for Iran's nuclear program but there's no corroboration for this. Whatever we do with this article about an Electrical Engineer, it certainly does not belong in an article about nuclear scientists. -The Gnome (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 100% clear who (Mossad or anyone else) was behind any of these. Nor is it clear what role any of these individuals filled in Iran's alleged program. However, electrical engineers do play an important role in any modern nuclear program - quite a bit of the staff at Sandia and LLNL are EEs. High voltage and rapid switching is quite important for nuclear detonators. There is no clear indication this is any sort of mistake - this individual was working at a national security facility.Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naah...but Israeli sources do an awful lot of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge", which is what they typically do in these cases.... (Read the Spiegel article) Huldra (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Icewhiz, a "national security facility" does not equate to a "nuclear facility." Western countries, to use an obvious example, have myriads of "national security facilicities," none of which are nuclear related. Second, when Mossad comes out and states that an assassinated person was working for Iran's nuclear program, then we can say with a rather high degree of probability that the victim was indeed targeted by Mossad (who, then, went on to justify the killing). Third, everyone working for a state service of Iran, especially in the armed forces, can be considered a legitimate target by your logic ("electrical engineers do play an important role in any modern nuclear programme"). Perhaps, to be on the safe side, Mossad should kill all Iranians with a college degree.

In which case, we'd have a huge number of Wikipedia articles to audit, of course, which is a problem. -The Gnome (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into whether this was legit or not or who did this - there are obviously two issues here that muddy the waters - Iran denying having a nuclear weapon program, and no one clearly taking responsibility. However, Politico in 2018 when covering the alleged Israeli assasinations (which are notable as a group - this individual got a short paragraph) - wrote [17] In July 2011, a motorcyclist followed Darioush Rezaeinejad, a doctor of nuclear physics and a senior researcher for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, until he reached a point close to the Imam Ali Camp, one of the most fortified bases of the Revolutionary Guard, which contains an experimental uranium enrichment area. The biker drew a pistol and shot Rezaeinejad dead. - so it seems later sources do see this individual as connection to a nuclear program. Looking at the sources for this individual (and there aren't that many) - it seems there was an initial spin that this was a mistake. However, later coverage from Iran has glorified the group as a group - and it doesn't seem that some nuclear (peaceful, of course) connection is denied anymore. Electrical Engineers play a vital role in many fields (from medical devices, through signal processing, high voltage, and yes - nuclear programs as well - usually specializing in a particular field or aspect - nuclear engineering, in academia, is often a sub-department (or in less developed institutions - merely a few personnel in the interdisciplinary department) inside the electrical engineering department) - don't sell EEs short.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is not convincing at all and I have no stomach for a discussion about Middle East spin. I suggest Keep with the intention of renaming the article later on. It's a subject with independent notability and deserves a stand-alone article. A link to the list of assassinated nuclear scientists in Iran would be, of course, welcome. -The Gnome (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ok, just ask yourself: if an Israeli with similar qualifications had been killed: would that have been considered notable? Hell, yeah,...and there would not only be a Wikipedia article about him, but also about every street, park or area named after him. Alas....when he is an Iranian murdered....he can be forgotten? Hell, no, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is a non-valid argument which doesn't need to be countered, however as we may see in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben-Joseph Livnat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oron Shaul, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod (nominated by Huldra herself) - this does not seem to be the case. Furthermore in this case - we already have an article on the event - Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Weisbrod was an arbitrary victim, in the wrong place at the wrong time, as were all of the above, AFAIK. Clearly you can see the difference an arbitrary victim, and a targeted assassination? Also, all should note that the AfDs for Ardeshir Hosseinpour and Majid Shahriari both redirects here, so this is in reality a triple AfD vote. Huldra (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Targets may be non-notable. See WP:BUNDLE for how AfD bundling works - in this case since the individuals are highly similar (and the redirect undone in all 3) - bundling made sense.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, it seems you missed step III in WP:BUNDLE: "Add the remaining articles to the nomination." Huldra (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"la" + "find sources" were added for both, and the deletion nomination refers to the bundle -- I am also nominating two other similar individuals - I don't see how I missed step III.Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! I see it now...just unaccustomed to this format. Huldra (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I'm loath to suggest any kind of "pro-Israeli" bias but in my experience here I cannot say I did not witness a pattern of alerts calling in votes on AfDs and of keeping up articles about subjects of quite dubious notability. Rather sad this. -The Gnome (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Gnome Yeah well, I once estimated that if you were a random victim of a violence in Israel/Palestine, your chances of getting a Wikipedia article were more than 100 times larger if you were Jewish, than if you were Palestinian. (Just count the number of civilian victims in the conflict (=the large majority are Palestinian) and compare it with number of Wikipedia articles on victims (=the large majority are Jewish) Huldra (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps the article should be called "killing of Darioush Rezaeinejad". The one event seems to be notable with numerous newspaper stories from around the world. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be important to keep it but altering the title to "Killing of Darioush Rezaeinejad","..... Hosseinpour", ".... Shahriari" might be a suitable fitting here.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is basically built on subsubstantiated claims. It is a very clear fail of verifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point us, please, to those claims that are "subsubstantiated"? I'd be happy to change my suggestion if we find sources to be "subsubstantiated." Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the first one is borderline, but as an “Assasination of …” may be a week keep. Majid Shahriari appears to be notable for a stand-alone article, and so is the 2nd entry. Should probably not have been a bundled nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the bundling - note I did not nominate/bundle Masoud Alimohammadi who as a tenured professor should be evaluated more critically for PROF (which he may fail). Regarding Majid Shahriari - the bundle is appropriate. He has very little or no coverage prior to being killed. His known or alleged position(s) wouldn't qualify for WP:NPROF or WP:SOLDIER. And his publications - google scholar search for him (might include someone from a different field as well) - not many, mostly uncited by others, many of them conference/low-grade journals, and he's the co-author on most of them - shows no snowball chance in hell of passing NPROF by dint of his publications. Coverage of him and Rezaeinejad are the same (in relation to their death for the most part with some MEMORIAL type publications) and often done jointly (in the same articles).Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO1E ,WP:NPROF or WP:SOLDIER and there is a page Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists for this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. I see little notability outside the circumstances of his death and the references used to write the article, as noted above, are mostly unsubstantiate claims. Redirecting to the relevant article where there is existing context regarding circumstances of his death is the best course of action here. Peacock (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Rezaeinejad to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists#23 July 2011. A few details about the possibility of mistaken identity would be good, but the incident itself doesn't warrant a standalone article. Not sure about the other two, who were actual nuclear scientists; that would depend more on their academic standing. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for fellow editors who suggest only a mention in the "List." Was not the assassination a notable event? If title and content change and focus on the assassination, doesn't that have independent notability? The Wikipedia article about the person who ostensibly ordered the assassination, Mossad's then-chief Tamir Pardo, is overwhelmed with sources relevant to the event: The Sydney Morning Herald ("Mossad shot dead Iranian scientist"}; Der Spiegel ("Mossad Behind Tehran Assassinations, Says Source"); Middle East online ("Mossad behind murder of Iranian scientist"); UPI ("Israel killed Iranian"); Haaretz ("Israel's New Mossad Chief Behind Assassination of Iran Nuclear Scientist"). -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had this been a long list (with one liner entries for each event) - you might have had a point. However - Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists is not a list, and covers (at length, and could possibly be expanded) 6 connected assassination (and attempts) events in which Iranian (alleged) nuclear scientists were targets. These men were not targeted individually - but rather as part of an (alleged) campaign. There is little reason (or policy justification per BIO1E / NOTMEMORIAL) to have an individual article for each one as opposed to covering the entire (alleged) campaign.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article titled "List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots," with coverage of more than "one line" for each one of them. And then we have an independent article for each of those attempts and plots, successfully or unsuccessful. Those people were historically targeted because they were presidents of the United States; not for individual reasons. Having a list about those attempts and the assassinations, cumulatively, does not preclude Wikipedia from having separate articles about each one. Same with Israel's targeting of Iran's nuclear program: We quite correctly have bundled together all known attempts and assassinations in one article; we can also have, quite easily and rightfully, an independent article about any subject in there that possesses independent notability. The assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad quite evidently does. That's all there is to it. -The Gnome (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between US president assassinations, whereas in this case this is (allegedly) one campaign in a limited time frame of a few years agajnst individual government workers of little note (beyond being killed). The content in all these cases has not reached WP:SPINOFF turf. Most of the lasting coverage here is of the set of killed scientists as a group - and not of individuals - try finding sources discussing any of the nominated articles that do not cover the other individuals in the set (by contrast - it is not hard to fidn sources focused on JKF or the attempt on Reagan).Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. If "there is no connection between US president assassinations" then why do we have an article in Wikipedia that bunches together all attempts, plots, and assassinations of them? Because they are related, that's why. They're not related operationally, but on account of being acts against the life of a sitting U.S. president, throughout History, whatever the reason each time.

As to the Iranians, we don't get to decide when an item has achieved spin off status; reliable sources do. The plentiful of sources is evidence of independent notability for the assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad. That independent notability is, of course, entirely independent of the notability of the other assassinated persons. Can your logic truly be "either everyone or no one"?? Surely it can't. Something seems to be bothering you, what is it? -The Gnome (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, the event within which these deaths have a modicum of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "modicum" of notability?! Hah. Each and every one of these assassinations received extensive coverage in both the western world and (much more so) in the Middle East, including Israel. The only error made by the creators of those articles was that they titled them with the name of the person, e.g. " Darioush Rezaeinejad," instead of focusing on their assassination, i.e. "Assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad." And on this easily amendable, technical error rests the whole case of those who want to see the articles disappear. This is why they keep invoking WP:1E, a fig leaf of an argument.

By the way, there's a campaign afoot to delete each and every article about those individuals from Wikipedia. They want them all buried inside the "List" tomb, with minimal information and a couple of sources for each one. Every deletion proposal links to this AfD. I will not speculate as to the motives behind such a campaign. But someone's using a multiple-head missile. -The Gnome (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO1E is a Wikipedia guideline - not a fig leaf. The campaign of killing these individuals is notable as whole - individual events are not. We do not have a separate article for each day in the Battle of France (where there are spinoffs for some battles - but not a day by day article) - even though we could find extensive coverage of each and every day. Nor do we have, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, pages on non-notable individual casualties or the killing of said casualties in the Battle of France (and again - we could find several notable incidents - merged into the main article or its spinoffs). Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists is not a list - it describes a campaign - and what is in each individual bio can be (and in fact, for the most part already is) covered there at length - as this is a total of six assassinations.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're twisting my words. WP:BIO1E is not a fig leaf by itself. I did not say this. What I said is that basing your argument on that guideline makes the argument a fig leaf, since the situation is easily amendable by renaming the contested articles. (But, of course, people want to seem the articles deleted; not fixed.)

As to your whole line of argument, it actually makes the very List itself, i.e. the article bundling together all the assassinations, even less tenable, and the existence of every individual article more justified! "Only six" killings?! How can we have an article about such a small lot? How about this: let's delete every mention of these assassinations from Wikipedia. This would follow logically: Too small a number of persons has been liquidated, none of these individuals is worth independent notice, it's all misinformation, etc. So, you propose a multi-delete by having one AfD, this AfD, in actual fact about all the independent articles. Based on the outcome of such efforts in the past, I'd say you will succeed. -The Gnome (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not on all of them. There are 6. 1 was deleted. 3 are up for deletion. 2 aren't (Masoud Alimohammadi doesn't pass SIGCOV (outside of 1E) but NPROF needs to be evaluated separately. Fereydoon Abbasi - the head of the Atomic Energy Organization and various other things - seems to pass regardless of the assassination attempt).Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, 3 are up for deletion through this AfD. Three birds with one stone. As I said, I'm sure you will succeed. The whole Iranian nuclear scientists thing thing will shrivel and contract to an insignificant mention in Wikipedia. Well, only themselves to blame they have; they shouldn't have got involved. -The Gnome (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for why these 3 are connected - Contrast gNews for "Darioush Rezaeinejad" with gNews "Darioush Rezaeinejad" -"Shahriari" or gNews "Ardeshir Hosseinpour" -Shahriari vs. gNews "Ardeshir Hosseinpour" - these 3 are almost always discussed in conjunction with each other - the exceptions being an image captions in an unrelated article, coverage of a visit to the family, or old coverage of an individual that was killed prior to the other individual. They are discussed in outside sources - as a set.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lord knows what you're on about. I never disputed the killings were connected. They are connected; they're part of the blatantly obvious pattern of Iranian nuclear scientists being the targets of assassinations. (By whom? Probably the Martians.) They're also "connected" in the narrow sense of each case being mentioned in the media along with any new one. But this is standard background reportage! Whenever we have, for instance, a mass shooting incident in a US school, news reports are bound to mention previous such incidents. In this sense, the shootings are "connected." Does this mean Wikipedia should bundle them together all in one article? No, and neither should the attempts on the Iranians, because each one of those incidents possesses independent notability. The rest is noise. -The Gnome (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed - I think keep the articles on Hosseinpour and Shahriari, merge the article on Rezaeinejad. The former two were academics that, while they didn't meet NPROF, their work/death "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (criteria #7) and their deaths seem to me to have been very significant in Iran and to fit in an encyclopedia. I prefer titled without the words "assassination of" for those two, but don't feel strongly about it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect this article to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. This is a person notable for a single event, and while it was notable at the time, particularly for the claims of mistaken identy that the others don't seem to have, I can't find any evidence of notability lasting beyond 2012. I would like to see the person's bio section expanded as part of the merge, including the argument for mistaken identity, although not necessarily as extensively as in this article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:16, 21 May 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem of the United Federation of Planets[edit]

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

Small nugget of fan trivia, with no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Prodded by a second editor, prod contested by a third without comment. I would have tried merging it to United Federation of Planets, but that article truly does not require any more poorly sourced fancruft and WP:OR. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, dear Lord. OR and fancruft so minute that it shouldn't even be merged into the main UFoP article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to !vote merge, but I think ^{• whaddya want? •} is correct - as it stands, it would simply not warrant either by evidence or weight a place in the primary article. In any case, there certainly doesn't seem sufficient suitable sourcing available for keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Beemer69, "OR and fancruft". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real out-of-universe importance. (Although I think part of it could go into United Federation of Planets, even if the entire thing probably shouldn't.) /Julle (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. I'm a fan, but I don't think this is notable. I'll change my mind if out-of-universe (pardon the pun) sources can be found. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Hogan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG There is only one verifiable source a piece in the Daily Mail written by the article's creator. Theroadislong (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. There are clearly some reliable sources available which have not been added in the previous years, I think it should be reduced to a stub and worked on. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the page I feel now I am being punished for uploading photographs that were refused as I am new to wiki and just needed help. I was blocked and vandalism was mentioned. Now you wish to take the whole article down. It is not just based on the daily mail. I cited The Autobiography of a Thief by Bruce Reynolds. I cited Crossing the Line by Bruce Reynolds. I cited The Who's Who Of British Crime by Jim Morris. My fathers obituary is in The Guardian 26 jan 1996 Final Curtain for Robber who got away, with a full document of his life. His is in other media writings and I appeared on the BBC One show which is on Youtube regarding him. I think personally someone does not want me on here I cant tell you how upset I feel kareenzaKareenza (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context Kareenza has never been blocked on Wikipedia. She was blocked and then unblocked on Commons. -- SLV100 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo advice You can try uploading them here on Wikipedia instead if they at least fall under fair use. Take this advice with a grain of salt, as I don't have much experience with uploading photos. -- SLV100 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the debate about the photo, my impression of the article is that it contains content that is likely true (being provided by Terence Hogan's daughter), but either needs to be supported by references in the text, or else deleted. Oral history, father-to-daughter, cannot be used. If content can be supported by writings from Reynolds, Morris, etc., cite those. The objections are not intended to be personal to Kareenza, or in objection to TR being an article. Rather, they are standard (and common) when a person's family members contribute to an article. Example of what has to be deleted: "The last phone call he made was to say he wished he could have taken a different road in life, and that he regretted everything, including the crime and his intermittent alcoholism, except his wife and children. He paid for his crimes with his life, and his psychiatrist said to his daughter after he died, "there was nothing his family could have done to save him, it was all in his childhood". As none of this is from a published, independent source, it cannot be in the article. David notMD (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much David David notMD I will take that out now. I have added citations and my tv appearance on BBC The One Show, where they had a great team of researchers and I had to be recored with absolute facts of the crime and Dads participation. I have added the youtube link to my page. Of course I am probably making mistakes and am in awe of what great people like you and ZfJames and NinjaRobotPirate have done for me, I know i need to tidy it up and will have to learn. I am very very new to all this and its hard when you feel an idiot and a dinosaur! I just needed a bit of help, because the story is of value to young people today wanting to get involved with crime. It had a devastating effect on my family and ended in all of us suffering so much and Dad was in a state of terror and in a psychotic episode so I want people to know it looks good from the outside but you pay and pay for crime. I speak in schools about crime and its effect on children. Anyway you have been very patient. My article needs tidying but I know now someone might take it down and that is a shame as to me it is a piece of British history. kareenzaKareenza (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - high profile notoriety - Independent refers to him as Terry "Lucky Tel" Hogan, a leading underworld figure, Who's Who of British Crime, Historical Heists, Biographies, Great Train Robbery (1963), Eastcastle Street, there's also The Sun, Mirror and Daily Mail which are not RS but I think they serve in this regard since "gang-style" criminals tend to attract the tabloids, and he is also mentioned as the mentor of Bruce Reynolds, in the book Crossing The Line: Autobiography of a Thief Bantam Press. ISBN 1-8522-7929-X, Reynolds’ friend, Terry Hogan, introduced him to The Star following the Eastcastle Street mailbag robbery of 1952 in which they both took part. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:00, 13 May 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. J04n(talk page) 14:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catrina Raiford[edit]

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

Does not pass notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of fluff sourcing, but the very tone with statements like "a regular at the gym" is just plain not encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's quite a lot of news articles from reputable sources about her online, so I think she's just about notable. The article is in a pretty poor shape, admittedly, but that's not a good reason for complete removal, and this could be fairly easily made an acceptable stub. BubbleEngineer (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Some parts of the article need to be rewritten to fit the encyclopedic style, but this is not a reason it itself to delete the article. Emass100 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is from tabloids. These are not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as above. Wpgbrown (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: But the article needs substantial improvement. Agree 'regular at the gym' is not encyclopedic.Terristevens (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep terrible article at the moment, but as others have stated, "needs improvement" is not a reason to delete. I see a lot of coverage, and it's spread over a couple of years. Amsgearing (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is from tabloids. These are not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some tabloids may be unreliable, but just because a newspaper is a tabloid doesn't automatically make it unreliable. Amsgearing (talk) 15:36, 16 May 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 10:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naema Ahmed[edit]

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

She was put on the BBC 100 Women list but BBC honor is not enough to establish WP:N

Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 05:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm on the fence for this one. She was listed in the top 100 Businesswomen and that generated coverage. But, at the moment it's just that. We should wait until people capable of reading the Urdu press can investigate whether there is significant coverage of her in addition to that. Otherwise it might be WP:TOOSOON. Ross-c (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: I did tried to locate coverage on her in Urdu language RS but was unsuccessful. In-fact no coverage exists in BBC Urdu. --Saqib (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable entreprenuer. It's Wikipedia:TOOSOON --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 14:20, 13 May 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. J04n(talk page) 14:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram Patras[edit]

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

Actors who appeared in only one film is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. Basically fails to meet WP:ACTORBIO. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person thus fails basic GNG as well. I can see some press coverage which mention the subject, but nothing significant. Saqib (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he appeared in a film in a notable role that was nominated for a pair of awards and he also appears on a notable television series. Seems to pass the guideline and article is cited to substantial coverage in reliable independemt sources which further meets the General Notability Guideline. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. To be notable he needed to have been nominated for major awards several times. Two nominations for the same awards ceremony is not what I think makes for 'multiple nominations'. But only just. If someone can show me that others have been considered notable for multiple nominations for the same award ceremony, then I"d be prepared to change my vote. But, for now: WP:TOOSOON. Ross-c (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Per Ross-c. Per WP:TOOSOON--VitalPower (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like it's too soon for this actor. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 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 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Night Out[edit]

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

Non-notable upcoming film, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the one source in the article is a simple database listing. It previously also cited IMDb as a source. All but the first few edits by this user relate to this film. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The film is yet to be launched and the production house is not notable delete per WP:NFF.--DBigXray 22:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could not find any reviews so it looks like this is on the way out. However, if after it is released, it receives at least 2 reviews, preferably more, in reliable sources such as press it can be recreated and G4 will not apply in that case, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: G4 only apply if the two versions are "substantially identical" and also do we count reviews by newspaper equal to nationally known critics e.g. Film Critics Circle of India as sugested by WP:NFILM ...and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics? Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment two full length reviews in national or regional newspapers that are considered reliable sources count as a pass of WP:GNG, which is enough for inclusion irrespective of WP:NFILM, although more reviews would be preferable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: How? GNG required "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail but reviews don't give that coverage they basically talk about reviewers personal experience. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Full Reviews count as significant coverage that address the topic directly and in detail by an independent professional reviewer who is often an expert in the field if they are in reliable sources for films, books, albums, songs, video games, cars, products and many other topics.If you do not realise that it is your knowledge of consensus and policy that is lacking Atlantic306 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I said above there is a difference between coverage and sharing own experience, anyways this is not the right place for this debate so I will ping you once I post this at ICTF or somewhere else. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 03:45, 16 May 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 Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. Consensus seems to be that only the one event of his flag design claim has substantial coverage, which is not enough. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Heft[edit]

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

If this biography's only claim to notability is that he claimed to be the only designer of the 50-star flag, this fails WP:ONEEVENT. As it is explained in Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions, he was one of three people to submit that exact design. This section sufficiently covers the subject and a separate article on him is not warranted. I have nothing against this man. In fact, I think this page tarnishes his name by making him sound like a liar when all he did was not understand the whole truth. This is exactly the reason WP:BIO1E was created, to protect people like this. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 21:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 04:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to flag -- Not separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the flag section. Not the first to come up with the design, and his claim is already discussed there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. WP:BIO1E. Coverage of this does exist - but not very wide - should not be standalone.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~(changing iVote, see below) to Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. This one is so simple: he has no other claim to notability, his name is a useful search term, and WP:BIO1E, that this can now be a WP:SNOW REDIRECT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:BIO1E "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." It seems like there is more coverage lately, especially since it was hard to find anything back then. His flag was raised at many locations. StrayBolt (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Heft was the leader of many Lancaster County, Ohio social and political organizations throughout his life and was the mayor of Napoleon, Ohio from 1975 to 1989. He also had a prolific career as a speaker about the flag and its history. This part of his career was removed from his page in April.[18] Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put back the career section and expanded it a bit (and accidentally removed the AfD notice - sorry). His coverage is far from spectacular, but he had an interesting and long public career which was well covered in local and regional newspapers in the 1960s through 1980s as well as his speaking career which continued into the 2000s. There are a large number of in-depth articles about him which do and which do not discuss his claim to designing the flag, particularly in northwestern Ohio newspapers; a few of which I've added as sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet GNG per sources from Smmurphy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to User:Smmurphy for noticing that "career" section hd been deleted and replacing it in article. There is now enough here (civic leadership, mayor of (small pop.) corn belt county seat,) combined with coverage of flag design, to make this a keeper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to flag or delete: Per above as not notable. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC since "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.". Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A politician that has been a mayor with an otherwise mundane personal and professional life (does not advance notability) has claimed to be the "designer" of the current 50-star flag. The article states, "To date, there is no independent verification of Heft's account". Lacking the before-now-deemed-important criteria of sourcing this would be a no-brainer. Wikilawyering that WP:BIO1E cannot count because there is sufficient refbombing of insignificant sources related to; "Ohio Democrat Chairman Coleman Speaks At Annual Fall Luncheon" (Really!) or interviews or personal accounts such as; "Bob Heft Vividly Remembers Designing Flag" or "Flag Imput Noted From Mayor Heft", leaves us with nothing but the fact that there is "no independent verification of Heft's account". Where is the "national attention" sources? If there are conspiracy thoughts that the feds are just yanking the lime-light and credit then redirect to flag as an area of contention. If we wish to start including that "...(civic leadership, mayor of (small pop.) corn belt county seat,)..." adds up to notability, we have to change all the "rules" to allow every mayor (or politician) in the US, and the equivalent world-wide, an article. All they would need is one unverifiable and possibly interesting, yet actually unsupportable "fact" (interviews and primary sources don't count), to tilt the balance! If we are not going to "slide down that slope" then "my unverifiable claim to a possibly important event" is just that and the article does not deserve stand-alone status. Otr500 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to address the point about national attention. I do not find widespread coverage of Heft in newspapers.com in 1960, although there are a at least a small number of articles about him and the flag later in the century in newspapers far from his hometown (for instance in the Baltimore Sun in 1964). His obituary was carried in at least 36 newspapers outside of Ohio and Michigan (his home states)[19]. I agree with the points made that it is not correct to call him the "designer" of the flag (in some sources the wording about his relationship to the flag is a little different; this source says that he created the first flag, others note that his flag was the first made from fabric - if something like that may be more accurate, but that is a content issue that can better be addressed outside of an AfD). I'm sorry if my contributions to the article strike you or anyone as refbombing. It was not my intention, and I do not think I added references to material that was already adequately referenced. I also do not think I added trivial material in order to add unnecessary or subpar sources. In any case, I apologize that my edits struck you as bad form. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the wording of the claim can be worked out at talk. But I DO NOT see refbombing. I do see SIGCOV of this man and his flag design that began in the early 60s and continued into this century. Here are the first few hits on a news archive search:

A star among stripes ; Old Glory designer doesn't like to wave his own flag, Vince Bond Jr. Newhouse News Service. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]22 Dec 2006: 01

It was his flag from first ; Robert G. Heft designed 50-star flag as a high school project in Ohio, Laurent, Julee R. South Bend Tribune; South Bend, Ind. [South Bend, Ind]21 Nov 2006: -- In 1958, a 17-year-old student named Robert G. hitHeft created... Heft's creation had 50. Little did either......the flag created on his mother's sewing machine would become our national flag.

THE FOLD, FLAG DAY, CELEBRATING OLD GLORY: [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]

KATIE MEHR. STAFF WRITER. Newsday, Combined editions; Long Island, N.Y. [Long Island, N.Y]14 June 2004: A32....restoring it. 2) Photo Courtesy of The Saginaw News - hitFlag designer Robert G.......by a junior. hitRobert hitHeft, then 17, was assigned a design project of his......hitflag. He then received an A on the project. hitHeft, who went on to become a..

Evolution of the U.S. flag. Page, David. Journal Record; Oklahoma City, Okla. [Oklahoma City, Okla]03 July 2001: 1. ...higher grade if Congress accepted the design. hitHeft sent the hitflag to his....Heft designed a 51-star hitflag with six rows of stars, beginning with a row of..., the Fourth of July, the American hitflag will be displayed at many homes and...

Visual arts: Star turn: Is it patriotic? Subversive? Both? Jonathan Jones on how Jasper Johns made a provocative masterpiece out of the American flag Jones, Jonathan. The Guardian; London (UK) [London (UK)]22 Apr 2003: 2.12....Robert Rosenblum asked of Flag: "Is it blasphemous or respectful, simple-minded...told the art teacher of a shy high-school student called hitRobert G hitHeft. In 1958,... tHeft took it upon himself to redesign the hitflag with 50 stars. He got a B+ for...E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. Not independently notable and the target section already sufficiently covers the subject. Sourcing above is insufficient for a biography. Being a mayor in a small town / civic leader does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 19 May 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) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steaming (crime)[edit]

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

Dicdef, WP:BEFORE turned up nothing that goes beyond a dictionary definition. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flash rob. "Steaming" is the word used for this in the UK: [20], [21], [22], [23]. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article existed long before Flash rob, so under WP:ENGVAR that article should actually be merged to this. A British person is no more likely to know what a "flash rob" is than an American is likely to know what "steaming" is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Steaming has been a popular term for since the 1980s whereas flash rob seems quite recent. In any case, per WP:PRESERVE, there's no case for deletion, as it all belongs somewhere, even if it's just robbery. Andrew D. (talk) 10:40, 13 May 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 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glória a Deus[edit]

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is rather a notable recording and should be keeped. All sources are reliable, and more will be added. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazian articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If secondary sources are to be then I'd vote keep.--VitalPower | talk 12:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Gateway Worship is a notable producer of Christian worship music, this album lacks sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:28, 16 May 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 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Reina[edit]

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article about the album is about something referenciable. It is about a important portuguese album, released in 2015 by the band in partnership with Diante do Trono. The article has reliable sources, and more will be added. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazian articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Walter Görlitz, there already is an SPI--if you want to add Milena, that't be great. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the two keepers above are now blocked. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, based on the three references listed there is not much hope for this album - no.1 is an announcement from the album band, no.2 a playlist, and no. 3 is just PR ie. "play the album for free!". Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although Gateway Worship is a notable producer of Christian worship music, this album lacks sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 14 May 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 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muralhas[edit]

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article about the album is about something referenciable. The article has reliable sources, and more will be added. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC) this is a sock. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazian articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is good, but there is a lot to improve, so let's get better. Let's keep! --187.56.49.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC) this is a sock. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- — 187.56.49.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Funny how these Brazilian (specifically Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil) anons come to DavidStarIsrael7's support when there are AfDs and other problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i didnt know that nominators can strike out other editors words that they dont like? (if so, im in trouble:)), and if they are indeed socks it would be helpful for readers of this afd if that was stated. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- They can't, and I didn't. This happens to have been confirmed WP:SOCKs of the first nominator (who has now been blocked for the behaviour) and is standard practice. Feel free to confirm with an admin or take me to WP:ANI if you question the behaviour. There may be another page that discusses that very thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks:))Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC) ps. no thanks to ANI, thats scary:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is paltry on this 2017 album, although Gateway Worship is certainly a notable producer of Christian worship music. I might have suggested REDIRECT, but it would be inappropriate to redirect a common Portugese word like muralhas (it means "walls.") Album is mentioned at Gateway Worship#Portuguese albums which seems about right. anyone who wishes can certainly salvage useful sources and add them to the Gateway article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:06, 14 May 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 per the request of the creator here. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saints & Sinners Bingo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NVG. None of these "sources" are reliable, in any way; most of them are just links to spam sites. theinstantmatrix (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think there is still a chance to edit to save this article (update) i've changed some source. Personale (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the slim pickings in the WP:VG/SE. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 13 May 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 06:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario FX (cancelled game)[edit]

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

There was no cancelled game, the article states that "no game titled Super Mario FX had ever entered development". It can't be cancelled if it wasn't even started in the first place. The article is based on a non-notable idea for a game with barely any information beyond rumors. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Super FX. -- œ^™ 07:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing more than a vague idea/tech demo that we know virtually nothing about. Not even worth a redirect considering the unnecessary disambiguation in the title, and the fact that Super Mario FX itself already redirects there. Additionally, most of the prose is already covered at Super Mario 64#Development. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Super FX. Not worthy of a standalone article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Serge. The redirect at Super Mario FX is sufficient. The target already covers everything mentioned in the article under discussion, so nothing to merge. czar 02:06, 20 May 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 06:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Father's House Soup Kitchen[edit]

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

A good cause, but occasional mentions in local newspapers is less than is expected to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as stated above, a "good cause", but in the end, trivial and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Every soup kitchen doesn't get an article, see nothing extraordinary about this one, fails WP:ORG--Rusf10 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 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 06:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked list of Luxembourg cantons[edit]

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

This compilation of listicles article is superfluous. It simply gather's tables from the three existing list articles on Luxembourg cantons (population, area, and population density). It's superfluity is demonstrated by the fact that no one has bothered to copy data to it from those articles since 2005, despite them being updated in the interim, and this creates a confusing experience for Wikipedia users trying to gather information on the subject. Luxofluxo (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this is an unnecessary CFORK. It's existed long enough I'm neutral on a delete-and-redirect to Cantons of Luxembourg. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced statistics and, noted as being estimates from 2005, well out of date. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 15 May 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 Ian McCallum#Discography. Sandstein 06:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me as I Am (Ian McCallum album)[edit]

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

Not notable, obvious WP:NALBUM fail, no sourcing found. 25 hits on Google, most of which appear to originate from WP and nothing on Google Books or even AllMusic etc. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This is basically a (unsourced) track listing but redirecting is usually the modus operandi because they are cheap.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:58, 13 May 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. Sandstein 06:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology[edit]

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

This prize fails N; this is almost all sourced from SPS, and listing out all the winners sourced only from the website of the organization that gives it, just turns this Wikipedia page into a proxy for that organization, and this is not what WP is for, per WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of now, all of the article prose is supported by secondary sources, which support that this is one of the most prestigious and long-standing prizes in nanotechnology. The citation quotations are directly sourced from the Foresight Institute, as is the practice with other prize articles such as List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry. I feel that the Wikipedia article does have value-added over the Foresight Insitute's own website, in that it provides direct links to biographies, freely licensed photographs, and the rationales all in one place. Merging to Foresight Institute would be a second choice. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antony-22, in this diff you wrote Okay, couldn't find any secondary sources about the communications and government prizes, so I'll axe these and deleted a bunch of content. The sourcing of that content is not different, from the bulk of this page listing the winners. Advocacy is skewing your judgement as a Wikipedian; this is alarming to me, and it should be to you, as a Wikipedian. This is something you need to try to self-manage, and the best way to do that is to aim with sourcing, using independent, secondary sources as much as possible, and summarizing them. If you find yourself building sections based on SPS or primary sources, it is a good sign for you that your advocacy is at play and you should reel yourself back from that, so the community doesn't have to spend time on stuff like this discussion or the edit warring or COIN filing that preceded it. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main prize as a whole has ample secondary sources: eight of them are cited in the article, and they range from mainstream technical news publications to peer-reviewed journal articles. These sources would be satisfactory for any other topic in my long experience. I looked for secondary sources for the other prizes and didn't find them, so I removed them. So I'm essentially agreeing with you on that. But my impression of consensus is that secondary sources are not required for award rationales; this is the practice at the Nobel Prize list articles, on which the format of this article is based. No, there isn't a secondary source for every individual awarding of the prize, but I don't think that's required by WP:N or WP:SELFPUB. If this is wrong, then the required changes will go far beyond this article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources used in the body of the article:

"Foresight Prizes". Foresight Institute. Retrieved 2018-05-07.
Marcovich, Anne; Shinn, Terry (December 1, 2010). "Socio/intellectual patterns in nanoscale research: Feynman Nanotechnology Prize laureates, 1993–2007". Social Science Information. 49 (4): 615–638. doi:10.1177/0539018410377581.
Feynman Prize: Dr Amanda Barnard, ABC (Australia), 2015-04-30, retrieved 2018-05-12
"CSIRO nanotechnologist wins top science prize". The Australian. 2015-04-23.
Finkel, Elizabeth (2016-09-26). "Michelle Simmons: a quantum queen". Cosmos Magazine. Retrieved 2018-05-08. ((cite web)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
"Feynman Grand Prize". Foresight Nanotech Institute. Retrieved 10 April 2011.
"Diamandis to chair Feynman Grand Prize committee | Solid State Technology". electroiq.com. Retrieved 2018-05-01.
Nicolau, D.E.; Phillimore, J.; Cross, R.; Nicolau, D.V (July 2000). "Nanotechnology at the crossroads: the hard or the soft way?". Microelectronics Journal. 31 (7): 611–616. doi:10.1016/s0026-2692(00)00036-7. ISSN 0026-2692.
Marcovich, Anne; Shinn, Terry (2014). Toward a New Dimension: Exploring the Nanoscale. Oxford University Press. p. 60. ISBN 9780198714613.

#1 and #6 are SPS from the organization. Irrelevant for an N discussion:
#3 and #4 and #5 and #7 are churnalism based on press releases; #3 and #4 are based on the same press release, each discussing one specific awardee (this is actually classic reference padding, something that paid editors do all the time; paid and unpaid advocates edit the same way which is we why ask about COI. Use of multiple instances of the same story is discussed in Wikipedia:Notability#cite_ref-3 as well as WP:INDY)
#8 is the definition of "passing mention" and does not contribute to N. For those who cannot access the paywalled article, there are two sentences mentioning the prize: 1) "Eric Drexler and numerous followers, e.g. Merkle) proposed a more revolutionary approach towards nanotechnology. The Foresight Institute in its requirements for awarding the Feynman prize for two nanoscale devices epitomizes the vision of this branch of nanotechnology." and 2) "Furthermore, the Foresight Institute “manifesto” (i.e. requirements for the Feynman prize), although—to their merit—not restricted to solid state technology “solutions”, is extremely restrictive in terms of the treatment of noise."
#2 is very good, and #9 is meh. I found those as well when I did my BEFORE. In #2, a historian of science, Anne Marcovich, used these prizes as a lens through which to view the history and state of the field. #9 is a long paragraph in a book by Marcovich, basically rehashing what she did in #2, so it isn't independent of #2 (sources should be independent of the subject and from one another - same issue as the two churnalism pieces off the same press release above). btw I looked and found no connection between Marcovich and Foresight - these refs are both independent of Foresight as far as I can tell)

So what we have here is one kick-ass source that would be great for generating content in the Foresight page about this prize. The rest is not helpful toward notability.

btw, this is what I mean above, by allowing high quality, independent, secondary sources to drive content creation. Something someone who is an advocate should be especially careful to do. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it. I was going off of what I saw on other prize articles to gauge the consensus on sourcing, but I understand that sourcing requirements have become more strict over time, especially with the recent overhaul of the organizations notability guideline. I was asked to add secondary sources and I did so in good faith expecting that that would solve the issues, but I admit that I misestimated how stringently other editors would approach the sourcing. Nevertheless, as I've said before, I will accept whatever the outcome is of this AfD.

For the sake of explanation, I did avoid using verbatim copies of the Foresight Institute's press releases as sources, and I actually removed a few that another editor had added. I saw #3, #5, and #7 as original reporting independent of the press releases; in particular #3 is an entirely original radio interview by a mainstream media outlet. And in #8 I see two full paragraphs about the Grand Prize, not two sentences—maybe still not substantial enough, but certainly more than a passing mention. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Antony-22: As of now, all of the article prose is supported by secondary sources Are you joking? With two exceptions, every citation from 15 to 38 is to the website of the organization in question. Yes, this is largely not, strictly speaking, "prose", but that's a clever word trick if it's what you meant; if almost none of our article's content (not "article prose") can be verified in reliable secondary sources, then that raises serious questions... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the list portion of the article, it is now three exceptions (did you miss the Nature Nanotechnology one?), but there were others that were deleted because they were thought by Antony-22 to be unneeded. Again, should we delete the Featured List, List of Nobel laureates because ALL the sources come from Nobel? I was looking at an Oscar page and many of its sources came from the Academy, churnalism, or other non-independent sources. Is there some WP:??? which would clarify the guidelines for sources for award lists? If the list part was spun off into a "List", would that change the requirement? StrayBolt (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OSE: I've heard of the Nobel Prize, and you and your mother and her childhood dentist have as well; it is covered in millions of reliable sources, in quite a bit of depth, and honestly official sources are the best ones for who one what prize what year, given how much false information goes around about it because of how famous it is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree that having official primary sources are good, like this article has, for who won when, what and why. And the large number of refs are because FI has a page for each year (while Nobel has one page for them all). I(we) have added some secondary sources for various years of the award from a variety of source types. Doing it for every year seems like overkill. I am still looking for guidelines for sources for award lists. StrayBolt (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"So we agree" - this is you misconstruing someone's objection, and I must note that it comes across as deliberately disingenuous. If it were in good faith, it would indicate a huge disconnect from norms of discourse and ability to understand what other people are saying, and be a clear red flag that you are not up to the task of participating in discussions on Wikipedia. Which is it? - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 05:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the Foresight Institute is barely notable, if at all, and the sources for this award fail the test of intellectual independence. basically they are either the institute itself or pressreleases (churnalism). Guy (Help!) 09:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantive sources that this prize has real-world notability. If this is "one of the most prestigious and long-standing prizes in nanotechnology", then you'd expect third-party coverage to be more than passing mentions. If you look through the article's history and talk page, it's all desperate attempts to puff up its importance, and that of the fringe science in question. Paid fringe advocates repeatedly removing tags from the article and its bad sources - rather than finding good sources, because the good sources don't exist - are an extremely bad sign as well. If there was notability and substance here, none of that would need to happen - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Foresight Institute is notable. It is learned society like any other learned society, like universities, for example. It is not qualitatively or quantitatively different in substance, from a university like Cambridge University or something like the Royal College of Physicians. Different fields or subjects but same outcome, to advance mankind. The prize is not well known, which is unfortunate, as the Institute is at the bleeding edge of research, and as it has not directly benefited mankind yet, e.g. making nano machinery that will directly fix, e.g. arteriosclerosis, nobody is talking about it, so it not notable. scope_creep (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think WP:SOAP is an issue for this article. By Jytdog's argument, we should delete the Featured List, List of Nobel laureates. Sources can be better or worse than others and there is a gray area due to independence, reputation,… so I probably add more than other editors. When a receiving organization reports winning the prize, even if it just repeating the press release, it is imparting information acknowledging receipt. For almost any award, most sources would say, "X won Y prize" and then go on talking about X and what X did. They might use some superlative for the prize. Puffery is easily fixed, usually by deleting the word in question. I have problems with David Gerard's accusations,"… it's all desperate attempts to puff up its importance, and that of the fringe science in question. Paid fringe advocates repeatedly removing tags…". For me it is: attempts to rescue with sources, of an evolving fringe science that is now more mainstream, and volunteer advocate of Wikipedia (not sure if I removed tags). I have added a couple more refs (SciAm, newspaper) and will try to find more. At worse, this article should be merged with Foresight Institute. StrayBolt (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a merger with Foresight is a reasonable outcome. ~~It is definitely time to dissolve the "rescue" project. I will be filing an MfD shortly.~~ This is the most blatant abuse of that project for canvassing that i have ever seen, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC) (strike for now Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Jytdog: This is my first time listing an article on "rescue". What should I say so it isn't canvassing? I was summarizing the state and asking for help finding sources. I will post a correction. StrayBolt (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think about your intention. It is 100% WP:CANVASS. Since you are not a regular there i have struck my note about MfD, for now. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking for help finding more RS, if they exist. I recently found a couple more and had found #2 before. There seems to be many press releases, many variations of writing it, and many unrelated similar named items so it makes searching difficult. StrayBolt (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CANVASS and do not try to bullshit the community. If you continue behaving this way you will end up with your editing privileges restricted. I am not going to reply here further to avoid cluttering this up. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StrayBolt: Having come here because of your note on the canvassing board in question, I can say that your request "for help finding more RS" did not stand out at all as much as your claim to having already found several sources that "passed the critics", which regardless of your intent will be read by the ARS regulars similarly to how 1 John's intended readership would read "the world". Similarly, "satisfactorily" was an odd choice of words. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is absolutely non notable, and fails WP:SIGCOV and has to go the way of the dodo. scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete The diligent source-hunting that has apparently turned up nothing to write home about makes me think this subject probably fails GNG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Foresight_Institute#Prizes. Not independently notable and the parent article already provides sufficient information on the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- we'll need to keep an eye on that to make sure there isn't just a huge cut'n'paste of this text into that - David Gerard (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foresight Institute who haven't !voted yet. @Fixuture, Davidcpearce, SwisterTwister, Rhododendrites, Hang googles, DGG, and Northamerica1000: Feedback would be appreciated. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good secondary sources. Notability is always going to be partly subjective and dimensional rather than categorical. But IMO the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology makes the cut --Davidcpearce (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the technically weak referencing, this appears to be the major prize in the subject. The references are good enough to support that, and that is the practical and appropriate criterion for notability of a prize. The general terms in the GNG substantial & independent need to be interpreted with respect to what can be expected in the subject. The recent tightening of the requirements for them in WP:CORP is a reaction to the promotionalism in that subject area, and even in that area they need to be used with reason. The purpose of the notability guidelines is to separate out what makes sense to include in an encyclopedia . They have no fundamental significance--where they are a good guide, they are useful. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed some in textbooks and by universities.[24][25] Could the current references be improved? Sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a bunch more [26][27]
- This lists the prize under nanotechnology developments[28] indicating it is fairly significant in the field.
- Anyway fair number more are[29] and [30]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Doc James rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 19 May 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 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contactually[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and routine funding news. Created by Special:Contributions/Kiwi0wl with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blackguard 03:36, 13 May 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 May 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom nailed the reasons, agree to delete, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:22, 18 May 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 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Lion (miniseries)[edit]

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

HBO decided not go forward with the series. BoogerD (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to confirm this? (you probably should've provided one before tagging the article). - ^theWOLFchild 03:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 13 May 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 May 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been a single update on the production in over two years. At this point the page should either be deleted or moved into draft space because it is clear that the secondary sources are outdated. The first ([31]) mentions that the miniseries was "set to start production next year" meaning 2016. The second ([32]) mentions that Phillip Noyce would direct a few episodes and that the series would "air on HBO next year" meaning 2017. We are now in the middle of May in 2018 (over two years after that last article) and there has been exactly 0 updates in the interim. It is very likely the production died during development as is common. This issue is worthy of at least a discussion. Oh and sidenote, Sean Penn was quoted recently two months ago as saying that he was thinking of quitting acting ([33]) for what its worth. – BoogerD (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, no source confirming "decided not go forward with the series.".

Delete per nom. Announced series does not satisfy GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable since it has never officially entered production and any content is based on speculation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is sourced and there is nothing supporting the nominator's opinion that the HBO cancelled the series. This shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. - ^theWOLFchild 06:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you that there might not be proof that the production is currently dead. I have no article to support that and I shouldn't have sounded so definitive in my nomination. However, there are other issues at play here as well. If the production has not had an update in over two years then Wikipedia:Notability must be taken into consideration. I'm not sure if the article needs to be fully deleted but it, at the very least, should be moved into the draft space until further news arises. – BoogerD (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft: - pretty standard way to handle shows that haven't been picked up/haven't had firm airdates announced. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some recent sources have been added to the article after it was tagged for deletion. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 04:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither cheatsheet.org not harshlight.org are reliable sources. They’re just reiterating information from the initial Deadline announcement. A planned series does not meet notability requirements; an actual series does. —- Wikipedical (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as above, hasn't started production yet.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with other delete voters, this is a good example of WP:CRYSTAL Amsgearing (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of chess gambits[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Article is almost entirely unsourced, what sources it has are self-published. Article is WP:REDUNDANT as the material is better covered in the articles on the various chess openings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. INDISCRIMINATE does not apply: there are a finite number of gambits, and they are analyzed into the ground. Each linked article appears to be well sourced (from perusing a sampling). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively - Could you explain how it is indiscriminate? Is "gambit" ambiguous in a way I'm unfamiliar with? There are many books specifically about gambits/opening gambits (I had a few when I was a kid, in my desperation to avoid boring openings). That makes me think it's likely this passes WP:NLIST. It being unsourced isn't great, but is it controversial that the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit is a gambit? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources showing WP:NLIST (all books):
Gambit Chess Openings by Eric Schiller
The Complete Book of Gambits by Raymond Keene
Gambit Openings Repertoire for Black by Schiller (there are other books in this series)
Alterman Gambit Guide: Black Gambits 2 by Boris Alterman (there are other books in this series)
Key Concepts of Gambit Play by Yuri Razuvaev
Squeezing the Gambits: the Benko, Budapest, Albin, and Blumfeld by Kiril Georgiev
Gambits and Flank Openings by Sipke Ernst and Geert van der Stricht
Gambit Play: Sacrificing in the Opening by Angus Dunnington
Open Gambits by George Botterill
The Gambit Guide to the Benko Gambit by Steffen Pedersen (there are other books in this series) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess openings or Gambit#Examples. Some of these are openings with possible options that are gambits, that aren't discussed in the target article (the various Tarrasch Defense ones, for instance). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki Would you object if I closed this as withdrawn by nominator? There is obviously a consensus to keep and it will save time. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. I'm baffled how this can be described as "indiscriminate", and it's well verifiable or verified by sources at the articles on the specific gambits. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the greatest article in the world but the list can be defined by the entries in the ECO and sourced accordingly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that it's not the best it can be — barely any information for a non-expert — but this is absolutely notable. I don't play chess but having read a single history book a decade ago, I can recognize a number of these. Clear selection criteria, blue links for all the headers, and the list as a whole is certainly covered beyond just the individual items; that's a clear keep for a list. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doesn't look like I'll get consensus here, but I'll note that the classification of some chess openings as "gambits" is inconsistent. The Queen's Gambit is not a true gambit because there is no good way for black to hold on to the pawn. On the other hand the Two Knights Defence is usually not labelled a "gambit" even though the main line after 4.Ng5 (the Knorre Variation) involves the sacrifice of a pawn by Black; the term "Two Knights Gambit" is not used in any of the books I've seen. The list also includes some very silly openings and names which you won't find in any standard opening reference, e.g. Halibut Gambit, Colorado Gambit, Lobster Gambit. (Eric Schiller's poorly regarded Unorthodox Chess Openings doesn't count). This is why WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Edit: Quoting Hooper and Whyld's Oxford Companion to Chess: "The most general terms are Variation, Gambit, Defence, Opening and Attack; less common are Counter-gambit, Counterattack, Game and System..... these terms are not ... used consistently and they afford no basis for classification". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a content issue, or inclusion criteria perhaps, but not a notability issue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid list subject. Artw (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:34, 15 May 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.