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. Please do WP:BEFORE. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Villum Foundation[edit]

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

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

This foundation does not seem to exist looking at the sites linked the "Velux" site end in a error 404 they seem to be a company selling housing things. Looking at the pages author's page he has done this before under similar names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MaKor and may be using sockpuppets. Daniel0wellby (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Did nom even search for sources? When an article like this in Nature says The Villum Fonden is the largest philanthropic foundation in Denmark for the support of technical and natural-science research. it is time to start editing the article for its flaws, not send it to AFD. But perhaps that Nature article was not found in the 10 minutes that were available (23:41–23:51)? May I suggest this nomination be WP:WITHDRAWN? Sam Sailor 10:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Sam. Very easily meets the bar of WP:CORP. Not a great nom. A Train^talk 11:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A big organization in Denmark that funds multimillion dollar research grants. A search with the Danish name yields more source even though many exist in English. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is is generally advisable to perform a BEFORE search before nominating, especially on Big Danish foundations. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep – Multiple entries in both Universe Today and Nature.com, as shown here [1]. Two well respected – secondary – independent – reliable source. Falls well within the guidelines for Notability for Organizations. ShoesssS ^Talk 09:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Easy pass via WP:ORG. Basie (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sam. Daask (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Running a quick BEFORE on Google News finds about 20 references. While many of them are purely incidental mentions that don't help establish notability, there are a few that do provide more substantial coverage. In concert with the Danish-language references which already exist in the article (and which I GF are relevant) this seems to pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 4 June 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 Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (1977 television series). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (2001 album)[edit]

Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (2001 album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable soundtrack. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sítio do Picapau Amarelo (1977 television series). Agree with nom that the album isn't independently notable but there's a solid redirect target that we should prefer to deletion per WP:ATD-R. A Train^talk 11:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree A Train, but the article keeps getting recreated. Brought it here to gain consensus as to whether it should be deleted or redirected. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Well, you've got my two cents. A Train^talk 08:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect seems sensible per above, and might discourage those trying to recreate it. Basie (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - not independently notable. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 4 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit K Dasgupta[edit]

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

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

Article's subject does not seemed to have passed any new notability criteria than when it was last discussed at AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rohit_K._Dasgupta. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to pass WP:GNG, in my opinion. This article about the subject in The Times of India and these two in the Calcutta Telegraph would represent significant coverage in reliable sources. Beyond that, the subject is a prolific author of academic texts for which Google Scholar is full of citations and reviews. A Train^talk 12:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of references and appears notable to me. Egaoblai (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm less familiar with UK politics than I should be - how big of a position is a councillor? He only got 1,965 votes, and it doesn't appear anyone ran against him (three candidates ran for three spots.) It appears he fails WP:NPOL. I haven't looked to see if he passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. There have been a couple feature articles on his losing candidacy, but the articles are actually about him, which makes WP:GNG pretty borderline. I typically would vote delete in this situation if he only had a political notability claim, but will leave this for now in case he's a notable professor. SportingFlyer talk 05:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This person isn't included or excluded by WP:NPOL; the London Assembly would be the body whose members are presumed notable. I'm not convinced either way regarding GNG; are there any articles about his academic research? I'm always skeptical of articles such as [2] about low-level candidates where the only claim of notability is being a member of a diaspora running for office. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per A Train passes WP:GNG and a member of the London Assembly London Borough of Newham and H index taken in combination do think he scrapes through GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're not a member of the London Assembly, they're a member of the council of the London Borough of Newham, which is a more-local body. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 1 June 2018 (UT

• Keep. Article could use some work, but passes WP:GNG. It's possible he passes WP:ACADEMIC too, looking at citing patterns of his work: 1, 2. Basie (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems like there are several reliable independent sources that reference the topic, and this person has done several things that have been mentioned in many different online newspapers and such. I would definitely say it passes WP:GNG.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG - borderline as an academic, borderline as a politician, but all together clearly notable. Daask (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep While his H-index seems a bit on the low side for WP:NACADEMIC, this is also a rather specialized area in which he's working and I could see it would be reasonable it is high enough to pass the guidelines. Chetsford (talk) 23:39, 4 June 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. – Joe (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto attack[edit]

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

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

Most of the articles in this list don't really fit, being battles and foiled plots, none of which were known as "Toronto attack". Before its expansion by 70.51.203.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), it was a redirect to Toronto van attack. I'd suggest either restoring that or redirecting to the Toronto Attack hockey team. ansh666 22:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with maintaining it as a WP:TWODAB, but certainly not including the other stuff. ansh666 22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Toronto Attack is a defunct, Junior ice hockey youth team that existed for only 5 years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I certainly see it as valid to question whether anybody would ever look for a foiled attack plot by searching on the phrase "Toronto attack", but it's very much not clear that the pathetic incel twit owns the title "Toronto attack" — York and Montgomery's Tavern and Danzig Street and the hockey team certainly all have valid and reliably sourceable claims to that name, and it's WP:RECENTISM to suggest that the most recent one trumps all the others. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Except there's zero evidence that any of them have ever been called "Toronto attack" (the city wasn't even called Toronto during the Revolutionary War). If, as you say, they are reliably sourceable, then where are the sources? If anything, the hockey team and the recent attack are both valid, but then, per WP:TWODABS, Toronto van attack is clearly the primary topic. ansh666 07:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it clearly the primary topic over a hockey team whose only difference is the capitalization of a single letter? Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click through the "find sources" links above? None of them mention the hockey team at all. The closest thing that provides guidance here is WP:DIFFCAPS, and that just says, The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for. ansh666 19:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google search results can be, and often are, skewed by WP:RECENTISM. The reality of the situation, however, is that if "Toronto attack" with a lowercase a is privileged as a redirect to the van incident over the hockey team, with no other way to distinguish it from the hockey team's "Toronto Attack" with a capital A besides loading the pages to find out which is which, then anybody typing "Toronto attack" into the search bar has an exactly 50-50 chance of landing at the wrong topic for what they were actually looking for. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Toronto Attack per nom. It's a wild agglomeration of battles, plots and a shooting(?) that don't fit under this umbrella. Conflicts in and for Toronto aren't referred to specifically as "Toronto attack"s. Imagine all the entries there'd be for a New York City attack if we were so loose with the criteria. (Well, what do you know. The NYC title redirects to List of terrorist incidents in New York City. I don't know that I agree with that, but at least it has a narrow focus.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Toronto Attack per nom. The title is far too ambiguous to be useful and since the references don't refer to any of the terror incidents as "Toronto attack" (as ansh says above) then it's somewhat synthetic for us to refer to them as such. A Train^talk 12:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I pretty much agree with Bearcat.Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Toronto Attack. My biggest concern is "Toronto attack" is far too ambiguous to be useful or entirely accurate. It also is a bit too synthy to include events that are not even described in sources as "attacks".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support to keep this on the condition that the title be changed to "Attack on Toronto". Since searches actuality refer to the events listed as such, it is far less synthy and dependent on OR.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a useful search term, and very useful disambig. Searching: Toronto attack, is just the sort of thing real people do when they want to check what year the United States sent an army to conquer Toronto; or some detail about a foiled terrorist attack (but have no idea what year or what to call the specific plot.) Redirecting this term to a defunct schoolboy hockey team is dysfunctional.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously Keep - the whole point of Wikipedia is to make information accessible. This is a very useful disambiguation page. Editors should not need reminding that the general public is not very good at structuring searches. This disambiguation page helps less sophisticated users (i.e., most people) find what they are looking for.XavierItzm (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I don't think Toronto Attack or Toronto van attack are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, so a DAB page makes sense. Having that page be a "list of attacks and battles in Toronto" is somewhat problematic; if none of them are referred to as "Toronto attack" it may be a WP:TWODAB situation, where a hat-note on the redirect target is enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery's Tavern is very widely referred to at the "attack on Toronto" as is the American attempt to capture the city during the War of 1812, even though the city was still called York at that time. This familiar phrasing is why I think attack Toronto is a useful disambig, and "attack Toronto" does get hits [3], [4], [5], althoug "attack on Toronto" is more common [6], [7], E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's great but this page's title is specifically "Toronto attack", not "attack Toronto" or "attack on Toronto". ansh666 03:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Since Toronto attack can mean different things, the disambiguation page is in place. gidonb (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is not a valid disambiguation page. Only one of these entries even qualifies as a WP:partial title match. Does "Britain attack" bring to mind the Battle of Britain or "Hawaii attack" the Attack on Pearl Harbor? It's simply way too generic a phrase. Also, since when is a plot an attack? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the entries more closely:

• two are for York, Toronto's predecessor
• three are foiled plots, non-attacks
• two are in Category:Crime in Toronto; are all such crimes to be included? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Some of the entries might need culling, but the basic concept is sound. For many of the entries, typing toronto attack into a search box seems like a perfectly reasonable thing a user might do. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 5 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peli Anau[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, insignificant college career, not strong enough sourcing to make GNG John from Idegon (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All coverage is WP:ROUTINE roster move stuff, and as this fellow has only ever been on the Cardinals practice squad he doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. A Train^talk 12:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no play in actual pro games.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 31 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El Meswy[edit]

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

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

Article has stood for ten years with effectively no references and a borderline promotional tone. Speedy deletion was previously declined, which is why I'm opening AfD rather than deleting it outright. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article as it stands is a complete mess with serious tone issues. I am not seeing third-party reliable source mentions of the subject to meet WP:NMUSICBIO, but there could be some non-English language sources I'm not seeing. If so, it seems like the current article needs to be blown up and started over; there's not much to salvage from the current article other than the list of albums. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article is (was) an attempt at promotion by copying website text into WP. The rapper has achieved little coverage beyond routine song listings at MP3/streaming sites. He has been mentioned briefly in Spanish articles about other people or his larger scene (e.g. [8], [9]) but notability is not inherited. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone finds some really good references in Spanish about him – I can't find any online. He seems to be a big fish in a small pond, i.e. a well known name within the Spanish hip hop scene, but it's doubtful whether that scene is very big or notable. As far as I can tell, all his records have been self-released on his own label (the last two were crowdfunded) so he doesn't appear to have caught the eye of anyone outside the local NYC or hip hop communities. Richard3120 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fact that a horribly promotional article like this has survived for ten years is why we need to have more strongent rules on who can create articles on Wikipedia. It is also why inclusionists are just plain wrong. The more borderline articles we include, the bigger and harder to maintain the project becomes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If notability can be established, a good dose of WP:TNT is required here anyway. Basie (talk) 04:41, 4 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little Princess (video game)[edit]

Little Princess (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Current sourcing is little more than two listings. No in-depth coverage could be found in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The lack of in-depth coverage may be due to the fact that the game was released exclusively in Japan, before the trend of collecting information on a large scale on-line had initiated. In addition, any sources that would not be found on-line would most likely be in the Japanese language, and not easily available to those who do not live in the vicinity of the storage of those sources. I have added a new section, in relation to the game's difficult mechanics, and have added another source to verify such information. Such information was based off of the Japanese Wikipedia article on the game, which was created in 2009 (1). I could gather greater information relating to the game; however, I would rather put the effort that such research would take towards the creation of new articles. Yours Truly, User:DaYL. Signed, 23:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not enough sources to show notability. The Japanese Wikipedia page only lists one source and searching under its alternate translation of the name "Maka Fushigi Adventure: Little Princess" does not show other alternate sources. Araratic | talk 11:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of article is unsourced, and additional sources are not apparent. Clear WP:GNG fail. Daask (talk) 21:28, 4 June 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 Userfied. Strictly speaking, consensus was to delete, but the primary author requested it be userfied, which doesn't seem unreasonable. I've moved it to User:Aryan Saha/Aryan Saha. @Aryan Saha: please read WP:Autobiography. While I've granted your request to have this put in your sandbox, please note that autobiographies are generally viewed in a negative light and you should not be surprised if future attempts to restore this to main article space encounter pushback. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I apparently got confused about who requested the page be userfied and moved it to the wrong user space. Please feel free to just move it to where it's supposed to be, or ask me and I'll do it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Saha[edit]

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

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

A Screenwriter is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they write several scripts or meet basic GNG. In this case, the subject fails at both end. He has so far worked on only two notable film - one is not even released yet. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Therefore I can't see any significance, Saqib (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing has changed since the last AfD except they're working on another film, which is their job. Run of the Mill stuff. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your comments short & to the point during this discussion. My mind has not been changed, although I do now suspect that you are an editor with a Conflict of Interest that you have not declared. Please read WP:COI. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Can you please confirm for me if the current version of this article is the same as the version you deleted after the previous AfD discussion, when you get the time? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if working in the same film industry (Hindi / India) comes under conflict of interest. I read the WP:COI thoroughly but since i am not connected with the subject in any way except he is a writer and i am an actor working in same language films, i doubt if it is COI. I have neither worked with him nor know him in person. If you confirm that working in the same profession comes under COI, i will declare it immediately Wikirecord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re deleted article: The deleted article had fewer and different sources than the current. I am not even entirely certain it's about the same person, although it's highly likely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page should be kept as all the reference sources provided now are independent of the subject, since the reference sources that violated WP:GNG have been removed. Also, his recent work is significantly covered in the media by BBC, CNN (Network 18) and other reputed print and digital publications. Three films and an award for his work fulfills WP:N, WP:ENT, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. --Pramitha Nair (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspiciously wide knowledge of Wikipedia's policies for a new editor. I see that your user page states you work for a PR firm. You are required to declare your conflict of interest per WP:COI. Please do so now. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't work for a PR firm. I work for an advertising firm where my work entails managing digital communication for a software company, which is in no way related to this. Hence, I have no conflict of interest here. I just happened to chance upon the page while searching for a similar name & decided to help. Secondly, I have a 'suspiciously wide knowledge of Wikipedia's policies for a new editor' because I did adequate research & learned by trial & error, which you will know if you check my editing history. Thirdly, neither of the points you mentioned negate the fact that the article now fulfills WP:N, WP:ENT, WP:BIO and WP:GNG, and hence deserve to be kept. --Pramitha Nair (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or as a second choice userfy. Contrary to the nomination, a screenwriter can be notable, but like pretty much anyone else, their notability must be established by means of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Several of the sources cited in this article don't even mention Aryan Saha's name, as far as I can tell, and some of the other sources merely mention in a single sentence that he was the co-writer of a film, with no other information about him provided. I don't see significant coverage of him yet. If anyone wants to have this article moved to their userspace until there is some significant coverage of Saha to establish his notability, that would be fine with me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikirecord's request below, I suggest that the article be moved to their userspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Request Since i am not that experienced can one of the admins please move the page to my userspace so that i update it with future developments --Wikirecord —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 29 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salil Sand[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a writer, with no strong claim of notability and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The article literally just states that he exists, without containing any content to suggest that his existence has earned him any distinctions that would count as notability claims, and the sources are not substantive coverage about him -- one is a very short blurb about him, one is an unretrievable dead link (even an onsite search came up dry), and the other three just screenshot his tweets in articles about other things. As always, however, people do not get to tweet themselves into Wikipedia notability -- people get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by having their tweets about other things screenshotted in coverage of those other things. This is written and sourced differently enough from the first version that it does not qualify for immediate speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but neither the writing nor the sourcing here actually represent an improvement. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Basically no content to go on (I think the deletion discussion above is longer than the article itself!), but it doesn't appear the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable writer. We really need to require all articles to go through the review process to come into being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of setisfying WP:NAUTHOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does to meet WP:NAUTHOR and not enough coverage as well. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:28, 4 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham City (Six Flags)[edit]

Gotham City (Six Flags) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Mostly promotional with links leading direct to Six Flags primary content. Nothing notable inherently. Fails WP:GNG. Previous PROD was removed by the author Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. Any reliably sourced information can be included in one of the higher level Six Flags articles per NORG. Jbh ^Talk 18:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 29 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Man (EP)[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:NALBUM - WP:BEFORE only gives a few mentions. Nothing approaches reliable SIGCOV. Notability cannot be inherited from the creating band. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Couldn't find this in a Google book or AllMusic search. All Discogs shows is a UK single with "Ladies Man" (song) and "Oowatanite". Definitely not notable and wouldn't be suitable as a redirect (song is on Harder ... Faster). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A 12" single with a couple of non-album B-sides is not the same thing as an EP. And yeah, this song was on Harder ... Faster — but the charting hits from that album were "Say Hello" and "I Like to Rock", not this, so it can't even really be salvaged as an article about the song itself. ("Oowatanite", on the other hand...) Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 29 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Grenier[edit]

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

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom. Only the qualifying round of the French. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 22:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:39, 1 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimee Floyd Angele[edit]

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

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another non-notable tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 31 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, improved with sources and about to be moved. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Springs[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTDIR. This is not even a census designated place, it's just a random area with no sources other than a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Can't see any useful purpose in keeping this. Deb (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree. I am not finding anything to build an article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am changing my vote per the comment by Dom from Paris. GEOLAND, which says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low" or abandoned, is more appropriate than NOTDIR in this case.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, shouldn't the title be Bloody Springs, Mississippi?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment could someone maybe explain something as I may have been labouring under a misapprehension. I thought that any populated place that is legally recognised met WP:GEOLAND. On the US Government source provided it states that the class is "populated place" and the description is "an official federally recognized name." This is why I marked it as reviewed without tagging. Would this not mean that it meets GEOLAND? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Bloody Springs, Mississippi. It is a real place. I was able to add some things. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it passes WP:GEOLAND and has been improved by other editors. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll go along with that, but I agree with CaroleHenson that it should be moved to Bloody Springs, Mississippi. I believe there is potential for disambiguation to be required (see The Bloody Spring).Deb (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it passes WP:GEOLAND. It can be moved, but that does not need to be decided at AFD. Bradv 18:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Bloody Springs, Mississippi per above; WP:GEOLAND is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GEOLAND Atlantic306 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 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 Canaan Union Academy. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canaan Historical Society[edit]

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

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

A page that disambiguates three non-existent articles. Some kind of record, maybe. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems a reasonable argument from nom. Perhaps an indication that an article should be written, but as is there doesn't seem any reason to retain it. It failed a speedy, but I suspect that was for poor category decision. I feel that I'm leaving my argument unjustified, but it isn't like there are various notability guidelines to dispute. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Incompetency, at it's best.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Canaan Union Academy as the only valid entry. Entries no 2 and 3 fail MOS:DABMENTION. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Canaan Union Academy per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above Atlantic306 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samiksha Bhatt[edit]

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

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

I was cleaning up this page, then realised all references are to non existent websites or tabloids - nothing notable. I noticed one reference to the Times of India, but that article doesn't mention her at all. Completely fails WP:GNG in my opinion TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I reserve judgment as to whether she can meet the notability criteria, but the article creator (as you can tell from his/her username as well as the edit history) is clearly here with the intention of promoting her and/or her films. Deb (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable actor and the creator appears to have a conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete may pass WP:NACTOR with prominent roles but needs reliable sources verification and this version is WP:PROMO with unverified claims that may be exaggerated given the promotional nature, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 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 A7. MT Train^Talk 06:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saim Bhatt[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, a search online reveals barely any specific mentions TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as per WP:GNG. Kishfan (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:28, 28 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. Note to User:SkyGazer 512, links to google searches don't pull any weight at AfD. If you believe there are good sources, you need to list them explicitly. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Sommer[edit]

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

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

Nobody knows this artist in Germany. Since she had been denied listing in the German language Wikipedia this article has been set up by her friends to get her credibility and she she uses it anywhere. She has absolutely no fame and the entry is merely advertising. Lucius~dewiki (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is promotionally worded, in my view. Deb (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A quick Google search shows many independent sources that cover this topic significantly, so it seems to meet WP:GNG. I do agree that the wording is promotional, and the layout is very messy. However, it does seem notable, and if we can get the article cleaned up I think it would make a great addition to Wikipedia. I'm going to try to clean it up some.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any reliable sources to demonstrate notability - the hits that show up on the above Google link seem to be majority right wing fringe anti-immigrant sites, or blogs. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:22, 5 June 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. Vanamonde (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Debbie Blair[edit]

Disappearance of Debbie Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Local Vancouver coverage, mainly around the event in 2016, little since. Does not pass WP:NCRIME or WP:GNG Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lots of people go missing, and this seems to be a case of missing white woman syndrome and a story to cover on a slow news day. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as Nom states, coverage was mostly local, with no indication of a crime. A tragic death; but not a notable WP:EVENT. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a clear failure of the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was a local event. There is no evidence of foul play. Near-elderly people die daily while hiking from natural causes. How is this notable? Bearian (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Forsythe[edit]

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

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

Originally created as an unsourced article that was promotional; the current version borders on an attack piece. GNG not met in any version. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree, the earlier parts attack an unsubstantiated complaint. The crime isn't notable per WP:NCRIME for itself and it certainly doesn't make it in via WP:PERP. No reason given to give him notability via a different conduit such as author or prof. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Quite. This article was originally an uncritical puff piece and is now reduced to an attack page. Neither is acceptable. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 10:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sadly being a shoddy medical doctor is not rare enough to make all such individuals notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 31 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 17:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Reiss-Andersen[edit]

David Reiss-Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:NARTIST. No secondary coverage of him personally can be found, and his work does not seem to have been covered to the extent that #3 of that guideline would apply. Only source ATM is primary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only source is the website of his company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Behind-the-scenes personnel in film production are notoriously difficult to source, and while the website of his company is not the only source, if one actually searches for sources, I find no significant coverage to support that GNG/BASIC can be met. Sam Sailor 20:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceresana[edit]

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

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

An article on a market research firm created by what appears to be a connected contributor and subsequently developed by IPs (without any WP:DISCLOSE). Regarding the text and references in the article (and in its de.wikipedia equivalent): production and issue of market reports is what a company of this type does, and gives rise to routine announcements which are considered as "trivial coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH, as are notices of participation at trade fairs. Clearly this is a company going about its business, but my searches are not finding the in-depth WP:RS coverage specifically about the company which is required to demonstrate WP:CORP notability. AllyD (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 31 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. WP:CSD G4, article is a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The article was previously in deleted in accordance with the subject's request via deletion discussion, and comparing the deleted article to the current one, they are virtually identical. Will also SALT. Noting for the record that there is a strong consensus to delete thus far as well. Swarm ♠ 21:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene A. Eilers Koenig[edit]

Marlene A. Eilers Koenig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Appears to be a request from the subject of the article to delete the article. The individual is marginally notable, and sourcing is marginal at best. Moreover, since the previous discussion, there has been no significant improvements to the article, Sadads (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject describes herself as an internationally recognized expert on British and European royalty, [10], and is described in similar terms by reliable sources [11], [12], [13]. Corrections in content are always welcome, but persistent blanking of the article by its purported subject, on the grounds that it's 'piss poor,' aren't grounds for deletion. 2601:188:180:11F0:6933:484C:120F:CB37 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional context See discussion on the user's talk page: User talk:Marlenekoenig, including a previous conversation about this content that was blanked at [14], Sadads (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG. There are four sources currently in the article: a book listing at the National Library of Australia, a Washington Post story that mentions her snapping photos of a royal marriage, an article labeled "Biography" that is actually a piece written by the subject on an English royal marriage 500± years ago, and an article that mentions her in passing and quotes her blog. The article lacks enough merit to justify staying around—especially since these concerns were raised five years ago and not addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete what c.fred says. simply does not meet inclusion criteria. per what editor claiming to be her says-- "a real encyclopedia would check sources". And we need sourcing that is about her, not the queen's extended family. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think she's notable. Once deleted, the article should be salted to discourage COI recreation. Deb (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely fails WP:GNG, with no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that I can see. And Salt while we are at it. First Light (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NotARabbit (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per C.Fred's analysis of the very poor references now in the article. Passing mentions calling her an expert in British royalty are inadequate to establish notability. The subject's hostility and general bad behavior are unfortunate and that reflects quite poorly on her, but she is correct that this article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 28 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 by User:The Wordsmith(WP:A7); procedural close.2001:A61:4E6:C500:3115:48CF:357:2E52 (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Rahmon Ojukotola[edit]

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

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:BIO as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a vanity biography. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - As A7, no assertion of notability. MarginalCost (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged.2001:A61:4E6:C500:5DD1:DCD9:3049:64D7 (talk) 16:03, 28 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wife and Wife[edit]

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

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

Search for reliable third-party sources turns up nothing. All I could find are illegal scanlation websites or self-published blogs that would not pass WP:SPS as established experts in the field of manga, whose work has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Fails both WP:NOTE and WP:NBOOK. Disputed PROD with nothing more than a plot expansion and addition of two user generated content websites —Farix (t | c) 09:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I did add cites to certain parts of the page and also based all the information on what I'd read from the manga. --GlitchyM. (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I advice you read Wikipedia's content policies, as your talk page history clearly show that you have problems citing sources and engaging in original research. In the above article, you cited two user generated contest websites, which are not reliable sources. Secondly, those source only directory entries which do not fall without the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirement for inclusion. —Farix (t | c) 14:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unable to find significant coverage in either Japanese or English. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete The "Characters" section, which currently comprises the majority of the article, appears to have been copy-pasted from myanimelist.net, which is currently offline for maintenance but it seems highly unlikely that they copied us when our article was created four days ago and the mirrored content is on their site spread out across multiple pages.[15][16][17][18][19] Even when "consensus" at an AFD is unanimous keep, if it turns out the article was a COPYVIO the result is usually deletion. Given the plagiarism, Dream Focus (talk · contribs) and GlitchyM. (talk · contribs) should probably both be trouted for this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I had no way of knowing it was a copyvio. I was, as I have many times in the past, taking an article deleted on Wikipedia and preserved it over at the manga wikia. Only one editor contributed anything to the article, so with his consent to have his work over there, I just moved it there. When that site comes back up I'll check and see if its copy pasted or not. Of course you only know found yoru way here because you are still stalking me despite an administrator telling you to avoid interacting with me. Dream Focus 12:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually an administrator advised me not to interact with you because ... reasons ... and not to bring up your past copyright violations again unless it became an issue again. Weird thing is, though, that I didn't bring up your past copyright violations (the editor alluded to here was the one who got the most points in Wikipedia Asian Month last year, two months before my first interaction with you) even though it did come up again after less than a week. You really should be more careful about helping other editors circumvent our deletion policy when their edits look like copyright violation (the article doesn't look like it was written for Wikipedia; the portions of text I Googled and linked above look like they were written for an anime fan site, which should make any experienced Wikipedian, particularly a Wikipedian who regularly participates in AFDs and discusses copyright problems, suspicious), let alone "owning" said contribs by copying them off-site yourself. Please be more careful in the future, and please stop using AFD as a forum to attack other editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article looks just like many other Wikipedia articles of its type, I having no way of knowing if it was taken from another site or not. I did not do any "owning" of them, I clearly stated in the edit summary http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Wife_and_Wife?action=history (All information by GlitchyM who asked this to be moved over here). Dream Focus 12:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"own" as in "take responsibility for; take under one's wing": my comment wouldn't make sense under the reading you are going out of your way to adopt, so stop wikilawyering over semantics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I didn't "call you out" or "pick a fight".[20] I pinged you in order to politely draw your attention to the "Hey, you seem to have inadvertently backed up a copyvio article onto another wiki; you might wanna address that". You chose to interpret this in the worst light and turn it into a "fight". I tried to collapse it so we could all move on with our lives. If you are not actually just here to "fight" then you should want this side-show collapsed, the article speedy-deleted, this AFD closed, and your manga.wikia mirror deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've posted this to ANRFC. To add a final note, I think the project really should put more emphasis on that aspect of the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of WP:BEFORE that encourages checks to see if articles should be speedied rather than opening AFDs. A simple read of the article should send up red flags for any experienced editor that this text was not originally created for Wikipedia, simply by virtue of it not reading like a Wikipedia article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: More efficient would have been simply placing a ((db-g12)) template at the top of the page (and commenting in the edit summary as to the matter already having been discussed here)... CSD usually takes precedence (especially in obvious cases) per WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:58, 4 June 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 11:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shayma Saadat[edit]

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

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

The subject is not notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable food writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 31 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. Numerically it's 14 to 8 for keeping (in contrast to the first AfD, which I closed as keep, where it was 22 to 7). As in the first AfD, the core policy question is whether the topic has independent reliable sourcing to meet our notability requirements. Also as in the first AfD, the dispute is mainly about whether coverage of this religious, creationist film by religious and/or creationist groups should be considered independent and reliable. Again, these are not questions to which our policies and guidelines provide a clear-cut answer, and so I can't decide them by fiat. Perhaps this is something which should be discussed at the policy level, with this article as an example. But given the more substantial proportion of "delete" opinions this time around, I think that the proper outcome of this AfD is "no consensus, default to keep". Sandstein 09:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Genesis History?[edit]

Is Genesis History? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was previously kept due to assertions of widespread coverage but recent discussions on Talk have undermined that claim to a very significant degree. For example, Metacritic, IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes show no professional reviews of the film.

As a film, it unambiguously fails WP:NMOVIE. It has received no reviews from well known film critics, a year after release. Not just no full-length reviews, no reviews at all. The sources that do discuss it fail the independence test as laid out in NMOVIE: The source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic (which by definition excludes creationist groups). To pass NMOVIE, a film ususally hits several, and often all, the criteria in NMOVIE. It is hard to argue that this film passes a single one.

So the next question is, does it pass WP:GNG? GNG also includes the independence clause: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Apart from Patheos bloggers, the only actual coverage of this movie is from creationist groups like AiG (some of whose people were in the film). It has a listing at Box Office Mojo, but that is a directory and is not discriminating. Press releases were mentioned in the Orlando Sentinel (mockingly, it might be noted) and Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette, but neither included any actual analysis or intellectually independent coverage. There is a brief mention in a Business Insider piece titled "How religious movies are thriving more than ever before under Trump" which is primarily about the use of propaganda films as a tool for riling up the base. A piece in the more or less mainstream Christian News is also clearly based on a press release, and the characterisation of the film as "Affirm[ing] Truthfulness of Biblical Record" also fails the independence test (see below). Another piece titled "Evidence of Young Earth Creationism Will Debunk Current Scientific Paradigm, Filmmaker Says" is an interview so not intellectually independent. There's an interview in AMFM magazine. It's redlinked for a reason.

The fundamental problem is this: Is Genesis History? is a simple question with a yes/no answer, and the answer is, unambiguously, no. Every single substantive source about the movie is from a group that gets this answer wrong. It's a collection of interviews with people who have scientific credentials, advancing "creation science", a pseudoscientific form of creationism. See Project Steve. So we have a creationist film where the only sources that might be considered reliable are creationists, and they are not intellectually independent because of the walled garden effect. A Venn diagram of the people involved in the movie and the groups that sponsored it, also includes people in the creationist organisations that commented on the movie. Nobody outside the bubble appears to have taken any notice of it. Not even God Awful Movies has reviewed it. The article had to resort to Patheos blogs to offset the obviously biased tone of the reception section. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly suggest that editors read the closer's note on the previous AfD, which makes a very clear (and blessedly brief,) summary of the notability issue. Closed as KEEP last fall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: passes WP:GNG with flying colors. Plenty of independent sources already in the article. If there's any doubt about notability I just added three more independent sources. Within the last couple of days more than 50% of the article content has been deleted--all of it appears sourced. We may need to get an admin involved to see if any editors need sanctioning. – Lionel^(talk) 09:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would an article describing a pseudoscience-filled propaganda film as "a science-filled documentary" qualify as reliable? Taking the claims at face value inherently fails any test of reliability, because they are so widely debunked. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... Flying colors. Let's take a look at the sources you just added: a press release, a local announcement of a screening that provides nothing resembling a review (this is the sort of thing that kept getting cited at the previous AfD, as though it is in-depth independent coverage of the film), and an oddly fawning review on a blog with a newspapery name (I couldn't find any information about it beyond that it was founded by a couple people with some journalism cred, so I looked at the author to see that he's not actually a film reviewer -- I've gone back to the middle of last year in his posts and haven't found another -- and that his last gig was at this obviously very reputable publication). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't take away from the fact that many independent sources either report or comment on the movie: the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (newspaper of record of Arkansas), Business Insider, Orlando Sentinel, The Christian Post, AMFM magazine, World, and Newsmax, among others. This article has received quite a bit of coverage from independent sources, especially considering that it's a small independent film that was in theaters for a few days. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The big question at the previous AfD seemed to be whether to treat this as a film or as something inseparable from its fringe content such that sources would need to meet the standards outlined at WP:PSCI/WP:FRINGE. If the latter, well, there's basically nothing. The last AfD was closed according to the former, with several people stating unequivocally that it's notable as a film. Ok, so then the sources we need are reviews from reliable publications known for film criticism. If they are known not for film criticism but for pushing a particular ideology, it is not a reliable source for these purposes. Likewise, if it is an announcement of a screening with no coverage of the film itself, if it's a reworked press release, if it's evident the person writing the "review" hasn't even seen the film, then it's not sufficient. What we have is a veneer of notability by superficial local coverage, along with in-depth coverage limited to advocacy organizations/publications. Unfortunately, if the same numeric majority of participants show up to claim that it's notable because of a bunch of superficial and agenda-driven sources, we're probably going to head for the same result. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All sources I have seen are either:
  • not independent
  • not having significant coverage of the subject
  • not reliable
• .2001:A61:4E6:C500:5DD1:DCD9:3049:64D7 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and Rhododendrites. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As NFRINGE clearly states: A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. The subject appears to be covered within the creationist spectrum, but not extensively, as required per the guideline, by independent coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a movie on a fringe topic, not a fringe topic itself. Also, the sources this article relies upon are independent of the article's topic, even if some of the individual reviews are not. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And, as I said, the majority of coverage stems from the creationist viewpoint, a fringe school of thought. That cannot be considered neutral, and the article looks to act like a promotional tool in a roundabout (not-so-clever) way for the fringe topic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, since there are many anti-YEC sources (such as Biologos) and independent non-YEC sources (World, the Christian Post, several others) that discussed the movie. And regardless, so little space is the article was devoted not only to explicitly YEC reviews, but also to any positive reviews in general. In fact, more space in the article was devoted to an incident where one of the people in the movie came out against it than to those positive reviews. Also, the paragraph discussing negative reviews was over twice as long as the positive review paragraph. If the article (of a movie) was intended to act as some "promotional tool", it's failing big time. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and restore deleted info back to the longstanding version: This article clearly meets WP:NFILM, and it has received a large amount of coverage from independent and reliable sources that are clearly "not directly associated with the topic", as the previous AfD found, such as the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (the newspaper of record of Arkansas), Business Insider, Orlando Sentinel, The Christian Post, World, and Newsmax. All of these sources are either secular or do not take any position on creation/evolution, making them all undisputably independent of the film (as the last AfD also found) -- the nominator has a rather high standard for source "independence", as any other movie on a less controversial topic would pass an AfD with flying colors with that kind of coverage (and there are many existing movie articles with far less coverage on WP, as several editors pointed out last AfD). And contrary to what the nominator implies, sources don't have to say "this movie is false BS" to be considered independent. Regarding the sources from YEC organizations (along with the many reviews from other sources), they are reviews and were cited as such -- reviews are inherently opinion-based as they record someone's opinion of the movie. Let's remember that the YEC reviews were condensed in a single sentence that merely named the orgs and nothing else, and that some undisputably mainstream organizations, such as The BioLogos Foundation, whose founder and president Francis Collins was appointed NIH director under Obama, were cited with much more extensive coverage. Either way, we're only citing their opinions of the movie, rather than scientific info (remember, this is a movie, not a belief), and WP:BIASEDSOURCES applies for these reviews, making them appropriate to cite. And while many of these organizations may have fringe beliefs, they are definitely not fringe by any cultural/clout definition. The article did not and does not rely on sources such as those, and rather relied upon independent sources such as what I listed above for the non-review/reaction info. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 1990'sguy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

By the way, I just found a review by The Dove Foundation: [21] Another example of the many independent sources for this article, which the previous AfD overwhelmingly affirmed. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whose website states “reviews are based on Christian values and we want to serve all families and individuals who love great entertainment, but also want to spend their time and money on God-glorifying storytelling.” hardly a reliable neutral source? Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Christian organization is irrelevant here, since -- as the majority of editors on the previous AfD found -- Christianity isn't the fringe or non-independent thing here, it's YEC (and some negative reviews by Christians were cited--and keep in mind that I'm differentiating the reviews from the other sources besides Dove that I mentioned above). That said, I actually didn't realize it was a Christian-based organization, and its Wikipedia article didn't help. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD does make decisions like restoring a specific version. Also: see WP:OWN. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this, along with WP:AGF. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator claims that this article is somehow a peice of pro-YEC flattery, referring to "the obviously biased tone of the reception section", but just take a look at the section -- the section had four paragraphs, and only one of them (a short one) listed positive reviews (both from YEC and non-YEC orgs). That one paragraph did not mention what those positive opinions actually said of the movie and only name-dropped the orgs. This is in contrast to the first, largest, and most prominent paragraph in the section, which listed several negative reviews (some of them were quite strong) and went into relative detail describing specifically what they said in those reviews (that paragraph was over twice as long as the positive reivew paragraph). The last paragraph mentions a dispute where one of the people in the movie criticized it, something that's quite embarrassing for the moviemakers. And somehow this section was a piece of YEC flattery? I guess one small paragraph of positive reviews is too much. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose JzG's changing of my AfD comment above (1,2). Not only does it violate WP:TPO, but the word "comment" is generally used in comments in AfDs and RfCs in order to differentiate from !votes, and no admin would count me twice with that wording. Also, Rhododendrites did the same thing (making a comment with the bolded "comment" in front after making a separate "delete" vote), but nobody changed his. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Before we start to see a repeat of the last time, with a series of people !voting keep per 1990'sguy's sources, let's take a look at how much weight any of those !votes should be given: Literally every source 1990'sguy points to is terrible. There is not even one real movie review among them. We have announcements of local screenings in local papers, press releases, and interviews with people associated with the movie. It's not even clear any of them actually saw the movie apart from the last one, the Dove Foundation. While I'm sue the "Faith-Friendly Seal" is useful information for some parents, it's far, far from film criticism that we would use to support an article about a film and also far from an independent organization in the sense of WP:FRIND. These large blocks of text with links to real-sounding sources functions to provide a veneer of mainstream coverage to which 1990'sguy would like to add a bunch of creationist advocacy organizations as sources. It's hard to maintain an assumption of good faith with arguments like that we should somehow consider a review by organizations like Answers in Genesis reliable because... all movie reviews are opinions (!). Either we treat it as a film and use real reviews from real film critics (there are none), or we treat it as a piece of creationist apologetics and use WP:FRINGE guidelines for sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I mentioned were non-movie reviews from sources undisputably independent of the article topic -- and that's OK because we don't need reviews (aka. people's opinions of the movie) for a movie to meet NFILM. Considering that Arkansas's largest newspaper (with a daily subscription of nearly 200,000 and a Sunday subscription of 80,000 more), one of the most notable Christian newspapers (which doesn't take any position on YEC), and other independent sources published in-depth articles of the movie (along with Business Insider, which established the movie's wider cultural significance), it clearly meets WP:NFILM (keep in mind that even some atheists and anti-YECers were convinced by those sources in the previous AfD).

In response to your "a veneer of mainstream coverage to which 1990'sguy would like to add a bunch of creationist advocacy organizations as sources" comment (which is simply ridiculous), I do not and never wanted to cite them as regular sources. I cited them specifically (and briefly) to provide a short description of what they thought of the movie in the article's "reaction" section per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and I added them along with negative reviews by anti-YEC people/orgs which took up much more space. Either way, this movie did receive coverage from several independent sources, and more such sources than many movies with WP articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of simple fact, their independence has been disputed, with extensive rationale, so your use of the word "indisputably" is, well, disputable. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a strong consensus reached in the previous AfD (that several atheists and other anti-YECers agreed with) that those sources are independent and that "the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic" per NFILM. You're the first one arguing otherwise, and I think your arguments are ridiculous, since many of your criticisms of these sources devolve down to them not explicitly calling YEC garbage in their reporting ("intellectually independent"). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. The intellectual independence of the sources was not properly addressed in that debate. And your view on this is hardly neutral, having written both this article and its counterpart on Conservapedia. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The independence was properly addressed -- several editors noted that sources don't need to say things such as "this movie was complete lies and garbage" in order to be independent. That's what you mean by "intellectual independence" -- even if it's from the largest and most prestigious newspaper in a decent-sized state with around 200,000 daily subscriptions, it somehow can't be cited because it's not as critical of the movie as you want it to be? That's ridiculous, and the source and the others like it show the article is worthy of keeping. The second part of your comment violates WP:AGF, as well as WP:PERSONAL since you're using ad-hominem reasoning in an attempt to discredit me. I have personal beliefs and off-Wiki affiliations (like everyone commenting here), but I try to not let those affect my work on this site. The fact that I disagree with you on many issues is irrelevant -- that's not the criteria for adhering to NPOV. Also, I waited 5 1/2 months (long after its theater and DVD releases) before I created the WP article of this movie because I knew it would be a controversial topic (I wasn't let down :) ) and I wanted it to be top-notch (of course, that didn't stop certain editors from wanting to wipe it off the encyclopedia). --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Properly addressed in your opinion as a creationist and the original author of the article, both here and on Conservapedia. You don't seem to me to give half enough consideration tot he possibility that you might not be the best judge of that. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your comments blatantly go against WP:AGF and WP:PERSONAL. You're trying to discredit me by noting my using my personal beliefs and off-wiki affiliations (and everyone commenting here has them) and using ad-hominem reasoning in an attempt to discredit me. My personal beliefs and off-wiki affiliations mean nothing to the edits I make on this site. And by the way, just read the AfD -- the majority of editors agreed with me about the independence of the sources. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am merely pointing out that however fervently you believe what you say, and however often you state it as ineffable fact, there is substantial evidence that editors with much less investment in the subject, disagree. You really need to start allowing for the possibility that you might be wrong. The reason you might be wrong is inextricably linked to your self-identified creationist beliefs and the fact that you edit at the creationist anti-Wikipedia, Conservapedia. You have a strong emotional investment in beliefs that Wikipedia accurately reflects as scientifically incorrect, and those beliefs are directly tied up in this specific movie. Your emotional investment in the subject is not evil, it is not disqualifying, but it is a serious and material bias that you consistently show no signs of recognizing as such. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I direct you to Acdixon's comment below. Second, considering that I waited over five months (with the option of waiting indefinitely) in order to be sure that this topic was notable and well-sourced enough to have a Wikipedia article on (long after the theater and DVD/BluRay releases), I don't think I have an "emotional investment" to the article, at least in any way you're thinking of. And besides, many editors have already !voted in favor of keeping the article (a separate debate from the validity of the movie's content, which would blatantly violate WP:NOTFORUM), contrary to your claim that "editors with much less investment in the subject, disagree." --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on, but you prove my point far more eloquently than I could, and you plainly have much more energy to do so. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Some of the most relevant sources have been removed from this article recently (see this edit). I'm referring to essays such as the ones from The Gospel Coalition, The Natural Historian, Reasons to Believe, and BioLogos. All of these are essays about the film -- granted, not traditional movie reviews, but analyses of the content of the film -- which were written by Christians who believe God created the world and yet have significant disagreements with the film: "some of their arguments for a young earth appeal to selective, misleading, and/or exaggerated data"; "Is Genesis History? (IGH) portrays paleontology (and the other disciplines it highlights) extremely inaccurately"; "Astronomy is my area of expertise, and I quickly recognized the flaws in the story being told"; "So what did we see in this film? It would take a book to flesh out all the false assertions made ...". Without sources such as these, I don't think the article is complete, nor can it be fairly judged here without considering them. The nominator wrote above, "So we have a creationist film where the only sources that might be considered reliable are creationists, and they are not intellectually independent because of the walled garden effect. A Venn diagram of the people involved in the movie and the groups that sponsored it, also includes people in the creationist organisations that commented on the movie. Nobody outside the bubble appears to have taken any notice of it." But I am not sure that the nom has taken into consideration the fact that other creationists disagreed with the film and criticized it. Nor does the nom appear to give the film's relative box office success (see IndieWire) any credit towards notability. If the question were "Should the film Is Genesis History? be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia?", I would answer "No", but that's not the question we are here to address. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are they "relevant"? If this article is intended to meet WP:NFILM then they are meaningless. If it's WP:FRINGE, they also fail, as noted above. The sources you identify are not reliable for discussion of film, and not independent for discussion of creationist propaganda. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is Biologos not acceptable to cite as a film review? They 100% accept the scientific consensus on evolution and long ages, and as I noted, their president, Francis Collins led the Human Genome Project and was appointed by Obama as the NIH director (after founding Biologos). If that organization is inappropriate to cite, then I don't know what is. Besides, as several editors have pointed out here and the article's talk page, there's nothing inappropriate with citing these reviews. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide RS that discuss the Biologos blogs as high quality movie reviews, generally speaking. I don't think you will be able to. They are Christian blogs, blogging about Christian subjects. Is this a movie, or is this some creationist thing? You cannot have it both ways.Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God's creation." I think that says everything we need to know: they have a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three scientists who are faculty at secular universities and who 100% accept evolution and long ages wrote the review, and they critique the movie on scientific grounds. Yet you call it a "blog." And this is the same organization formerly run by the head of the Human Genome Project before he was appointed NIH Director. They are Christian, but 100% accept evolution, and represent a large proportion of Americans. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three people writing in an unreliable source remains an unreliable source. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biologos is about as reliable as you can get, considering who its contributors and endorsers are (academics at secular universities), and considering its 100% acceptance of evolution. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I nominated this for deletion the first time and still see this page as propaganda for a propaganda film. Rhododendrites really nailed the key issue in a recent talk page discussion here when they wrote: The keep !voters kept saying that it should be kept because it's a movie and should be treated as a movie rather than consider the fringe subject matter. Then we kept it on the basis that it should be treated like a film, despite the fact that there wasn't significant in-depth coverage of the film itself (only some announcements/press releases/buzz published in local news sources). Now we have an article about a movie that we're supposed to treat like a movie, but we cite sources that are not known as reliable sources for film criticism. Folks are trying to have it both ways - we cannot keep a documentary on the basis that "it is a movie" when there are not multiple independent, secondary sources about it. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. This film has received sufficient coverage in independent and reliable sources. It satisfies WP:NFILM. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point User:JosephusOfJerusalem, you definitely need to identify those "independent and reliable sources" and say why they are indy and RS. Lots of us have looked for a long time, and all there is, are in-bubble blogs. We need normal indy RS -- like this; that is an independent, reliable source about a movie. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW does not apply after multiple delete !votes. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On his defense, keeping the article should be obvious, considering that literally nothing has changed after the first AfD, which passed overwhealmingly with even atheists and anti-YECers supporting keeping the article, other than that a single editor jumped in and unilaterally decided to delete half the page's content before nominating it for AfD. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we do have reliable and independent sources of the movie, as I've mentioned above numerous times. It's irrelevent that the NYT didn't write a review of the movie, and as E.M.Gregory pointed out below, a movie doesn't even need reviews to pass WP:NFILM. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, one important thing has changed: people have started asserting that the article should be treated like a movie, not like a fringe subject, and the sources don't support treating it like a movie. So the having the cake and eating it is new. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False -- many editors (a majority, actually) argued in the first AfD for treating the article as a movie under NFILM rather than FRIND, and they used the sources to support this. This is unchanged. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restore: is it just a coincidence that over half the page content was removed before being nominated for the purpose of AFD with the nom claiming there's not enough coverage to be kept? There are enough independent sources to keep the article, and the non-independent reviews can be attributed to those who wrote them. I don't believe any of this creationism stuff, but I don't see any obvious pov-pushing or poor editing. Previous AFD isn't even that old. Lorstaking (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have cause and effect reversed. I reviewed the sourcing in the article. It was problematic: flattering reviews by creationist organisations are not really acceptable in Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE. As a result of my fruitless search for any mainstream coverage of this movie, I nominated it for deletion. Search the usual critic aggregators. No movie critics have written about this movie, so it's not WP:NFILM, it falls under WP:NFRINGE, and it fails there, too, because nobody other than partisans in the creationist culture war have commented. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in my view it does pass WP:GNG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWhere are the reliable independant sources that have significant coverage of the topic? Name one.2001:A61:4E6:C500:3115:48CF:357:2E52 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out several times above, there are many reliable and independent sources on the movie -- many other WP movie articles of independent films would love to have the same amount of coverage. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'll admit that I haven't gone through every single source in every single version of the article. But establishing notability really is not so hard that I should have to do that. It is the responsibility of the "keep" !voters here to link us to just three reliable sources (preferably from more than a regional level) that are independent of the subject but specifically about it. Citing (or worse, just mentioning) a bunch of sources that only barely mention the subject, or that are only sorta not related if you don't look directly at it, or are only almost reliable is a tactic used to obfuscate a lack of notability (I'll assume it's accidental and not intentional). A quarter-sentence mention in an article in a broader trend doesn't work. Creationist sites do not work. Blogs masquerading as newspapers do not work. A blurb in a podunk newspaper only announcing that "i'z gun'be sho'n at da the'dur nex'ta Unc'a-Daddy Jim-Bob's Gunz-n-Fry'd Chik'n" does not work. Saying that there are sources out there while expecting us to find them does not work. I'm even going to ignore the deletion argument that an article should meet either NFILM or NFRINGE and can't just cherry pick to ride some weird middle ground -- the "keep" !voters simply are not presenting any good reason to keep the article and if they were !voting "keep" in both full knowledge and honesty they should be able to present just three sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the result of the previous AfD. Nothing about the article has substantially changed (with a large caveat, discussed below) since that time, and the arguments for deletion here are substantially the same as the ones raised previously. The nominator asserts that "recent discussions on Talk have undermined" the significant coverage argument, but examining the article's talk page does not support that assertion. The sourcing discussions there include a brief discussion of using Patheos as a source (the decision was to leave it in); a discussion of what, if anything, to use from Rotten Tomatoes (the decision was to exclude all of it); a discussion about the reliability/acceptability/usefulness of a sarcastic throwaway line from the Orlando Sentinel (which was kept); a discussion of which quote to use from the BioLogos Foundation review (during which exactly zero editors objected to it as a source and editors on both sides ended with a cordial acknowledgement of productive collaborative editing – an absolute unicorn sighting on this article). That was up until the nominator's edit of May 23 which unilaterally removed a large chunk of the Reception section. And I feel it necessary to note that these changes removed ALL of the positive reviews of the film, including the ones from Patheos which were previously, albeit briefly, discussed on the talk page. The rest of the reviews – bizarrely excepting the line from the Orlando Sentinel – were only removed by the nominator two days later, after I pointed out in the ensuing discussion that the logic used to remove the first set of reviews would also necessitate removal of the second set, which were all critical of the film. To be clear, I was not arguing for the removal of either, only the consistent application of the nominator's rationale by the nominator. The aforementioned ensuing discussion shows that the removal of these sources as unreliable was contested, and spawned an RfC that, at the time of this writing, remains open. So the assertion that "recent discussions on Talk have undermined" the removed sources may be true in the nominator's mind, but it is not supported by any formal community consensus, and is in fact, contradicted by a few of the discussions I just cited.

Further, the nominator says, "So the next question is, does it pass WP:GNG? GNG also includes the independence clause: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Apart from Patheos bloggers, the only actual coverage of this movie is from creationist groups like AiG (some of whose people were in the film)." This is an oversimplification at best. First, there has been disagreement on the talk page about the definition of "independence of the subject". In this case, does that mean independence from the film or independence from its subject? The nominator glosses over this distinction by citing Answers in Genesis (AiG), who both sides have acknowledged have an employee interviewed in the film. However, the removed sources also include Adventist Review, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, the Associates for Biblical Research, and the Geoscience Research Institute. All of those would be independent of the film, but not independent of its subject matter, as they are on record as in agreement with the general tenets of Young Earth creationism. (And I say general tenets, because YEC is not a homogeneous doctrinal position.) After noting that latter interpretation of "independent" would also exclude committed anti-YEC Christian sources, reviews by blogger Joel Edmund Anderson, Reason to Believe, The Gospel Coalition, and the BioLogos Foundation were also removed; remember, some of these were discussed without objection in previous talk page discussions. This says nothing of sourcing from WND, World, and Newsmax, which although they are Christian and/or conservative sources, take no official position on YEC that I am aware of. It is while the current version of the article omits all of these references, and while an active RfC about their acceptability is ongoing, that this (second) AfD was created, using as a basis that there is not enough coverage in reliable sources, an argument that the community already rejected in substance last September. For these reasons, I believe the timing of this AfD is imprudent at best, and disruptive at worst. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of this is about the parallel discussion of the removed material, so I'll pass that by as irrelevant to the AfD and just concentrate on the sources (which should be considered regardless of whether or not they're currently cited). You've listed several organizations/publications that you've indeed regarded as not independent of the subject matter. I would add that they are also not good sources for film criticism, being advocacy organizations known for advocacy and particular issues, and not film criticism. Then there are those that are not independent... but those are WorldNewsDaily, Newsmax, and World. WND and Newsmax are scarcely reliable sources for anything let alone creationist subjects. I'm less familiar with World, but the article on the film repeats much of the same material from the press tour and ends with "an engrossing primer on why we can feel confident believing the Bible’s account of creation", which doesn't exactly instill confidence in its reliability. Any actual reviews from sources that aren't looking to feel confident believing the Bible's account of creation? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of this is about the parallel discussion of the removed material, so I'll pass that by as irrelevant to the AfD". Except the acceptability of a large number of sources isn't irrelevant to the AfD when the stated rationale for the AfD is a lack of acceptable sources. I (and others) contend that the definition of "independent" in policy should be understood as "independent from the film", and not, as still others have contended, "independent from the film's subject matter". Further, I am contending that the issue of "reliable sources" depends on the answer to "reliable for what?" I don't see that any of the sources were being used inconsistent with their inherent reliability. (That is, sources with a pro-YEC bias were properly identified and used to cite the reaction to the film from that perspective. They were not used to cite something like, "Man and dinosaurs co-existed", which would obviously be an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and require extraordinary sourcing. On the other side, the anti-YEC, neutral Christian, and politically conservative sources were also properly identified and used to cite similar passages.) If the community agrees with these interpretations, then there are many more sources that should be considered relative to the film's notability than are represented in the current version of the article (i.e. those that were purged on and subsequent to May 23). The fact is, the movie generated a lot of commentary from a variety of viewpoints – one might say an outsized amount, given its budget and limited screen time – and that, in my opinion, makes it notable. And I have just explained, again, why I believe that opinion is consistent with policy. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you are saying it fails WP:NMOVIE but passes GNG because although all writeups that exceed the standard of a press release are Christian conservative sources, not all of these are actively creationist, yes? And I get that. But I still find that problematic given the political machinations of the religious right, trying to get creationism taught as fact in public schools. The absence of any reality-based commentary at all is very worrying. We have articles on other fringe propaganda films which I think are fine, because they have reality-based commentary, but here there is absolutely nothing outside the bubble other than blogs. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may find my assertions problematic because of "the political machinations of the religious right". I find your assertion that "all writeups that exceed the standard of a press release are Christian conservative sources", combined with your subsequent assertion that this represents an "absence of any reality-based commentary at all" equally troubling, implying – as it does – that no Christian or conservative sources qualify as "reality-based". That comes, I'm sure, from our respective biases. That's why the question was put to the wider community. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reality-based is the correct term. Creationists prefer to describe the reality-based community as "evolutionists", as if they are to equal and opposing religious dogmas, but evolution by natural selection is a conclusion from observed fact. Virtually all conservative sources in the US right now have a dog in this fight, due to the pervasive influence of the religious right. They frame it as a creation-evolution debate, just as they frame climate change denialism as a debate, but the "debate" is political not scientific and is sustained exclusively by well-funded ideologues who reject scientific conclusions because of their implications for personal belief and / or wealth. Collier, Martin and Nassau Counties have just tried to alter textbooks, once again to place creationism on a par with science. Christian conservatives typically support this regardless of their belief in literal creation because they do not accept that the First Amendment genuinely forbids state-sponsored religious indoctrination. They are content to support making the curriculum more Jesus-y even if it's the "wrong" flavour of evangelical Christianity. It's a form of orthodoxy which is based on the implicit assumption that creationism is a valid view of the origin of life, and they only differ on whether God did it in six literal days or over a longer period. That, in their minds, is the only actual debate, whereas for the reality-based community there is no place for the supernatural, no gap in the evidence that would require a supernatural explanation. It's religoous Truth™ versus empirical fact. And the two are not equal. I'm confident that Not everyone in the Arizona state house is a creationist, but they sure as hell don't like evolution. It's hatred of evolution, not support for creationism, that makes these sources partisan and unreliable. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I do have to point out here that the majority of Christians outside of American (or American-style) Conservative Evangelicals accept evolution. This isn't even a "religion vs science" deal, it's literally just one political party's hijacking of religiously-themed pseudoscience to ensure votes. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of assumptions and projections you are using to arrive at your conclusion. Painting all, or even nearly all, US Christians and conservatives with this broad brush so that you can rhetorically remove them from the ranks of the "reality-based community" is a leap that I don't believe the WP community as a whole is willing to make, and I'm betting a fair number of them would be offended by. For someone who has spent more than a few words lecturing 1990'sguy about how his biases might impact his ability to impartially consider the correctness of his decisions, might I suggest that your comments here indicate that a bit of introspection on your own worldview might also be prudent, and for the same reasons? I think everyone involved in this debate understands the accepted perspective on YEC and its adherents, but to then do a bunch of hand-waving about money and political power to project that same perspective onto all US Christians and conservatives requires a healthy does of original research and synthesis that I think the average Wikipedian would be uncomfortable with. If this is your logic for discounting AiG, Newsmax, and everything in between, then I don't think it is very persuasive. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:NFILM with sourcing by WP:RS, non-creation science related publications like The Christian Post. We have a great many articles about documentary films and books that make fraudulent and fringe claims, the only unusual thing here is the intensity of the effort to delete this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Christian Post coverage is not a review. It has nothing resembling criticism. It barely talks about the film itself in the publication's voice. It is an exercise in giving a flexible platform to the filmmaker to say whatever promotional whatnot he wants to about the film, with no attempt at anything resembling criticism/analysis. It may not actively promote YEC like, say, Answers in Genesis, but it provides a free, uncritical platform to those that do, winding up with untouched (nevermind unchallenged) statements like "Tackett sad in an interview with The Christian Post last month that the goal of the documentary is to have people walk away from the experience knowing that science supports God's Word." That's not something you'll find in real film reviews, and perhaps one reason why there isn't any. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

straw man argument, reviews are not required. Feature stories and coverage of the business aspects (screenings, attendence, gross,) can meet NFILM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is factually incorrect. NFILM lists a number of criteria:widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics - not met. historically notable, as evidenced by [...] [tests] at least five years after the film's initial release. Not met, film is only 1 year old featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. Not met. Received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Not met. This is Oscars, basically. selected for preservation in a national archive. Not met. "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.. Not met. NFILM notes "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." That encompasses pretty much every source presented, with the exception of a couple of pieces by creationist think-tanks. Whether or not this passes GNG, it clearly and unambiguously fails NFILM. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring specifically to WP:NFO, which lists additional criteria for movies that don't meet WP:NFSOURCES. This movie does meet the latter with its many reliable and independent sources, so the former is irrelevant. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting the WP:FORUMSHOP aspect of this AfD, RfC, 2ndAfD pattern.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think that the movie itself was significant enough to warrant a page of its own, regardless of where you stand on the evolution creation debate. If the wording is biased in favor of creationism, then that can be improved. I do not see a reason why this should be deleted? Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a series of tests to establish whether that is true, they are set out in WP:NMOVIE. This film fails all of them. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. "Weak" because organisations like the Christian Post share the ideology of the film, but are otherwise independent: so they could be used for statements like "[film] was made in [year] by [director] and released by [studio]. It included interviews with [interviewees]." Obviously, sources which endorse creationism cannot be used for any substantive analysis of this topic. Therefore, we would have something in the nature of a WP:PERMASTUB. That said, I'm not convinced that such a stub would satisfy NPOV; for this subject to have a neutral article, it must be described for what it is (pseudoscience) and therefore it must have substantive coverage in sources that recognize creationism as pseudoscience. I do not see sufficient such coverage at present, so I believe it should be deleted. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

false premise. The Christian Post does not support and is fully independent of Creation science. I know this is arcane, but Creation science is a minor, fringe, subset of Christian fundamentalism. Vanamonde, and, indeed, a number of editors above, conflate creationism with creation science, and are led to incorrectly dismiss WP:RS media in the false belief that, "organisations like the Christian Post share the ideology of the film."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninterested in the terminology you use to describe them. An organisation whose website includes, in the "about us" section, the following statement, is completely unreliable for commentary on the historical nature of genesis. "We affirm the [...] truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms..." [22] Vanamonde (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But even theistic evolutionists (who believe the scientific consensus on evolution 100%) use wording like that. Biologos, which is supported by many mainstream scientists who believe in God and was led by Francis Collins, has a similar statement. As another example, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was signed by many people who believed in evolution at least in some form. Simply saying they hold to a high view of the Bible doesn't say anything about the Christian Post's stance (if any at all, which I doubt) on evolution.

Even without the Christian Post, you're ignoring the other sources, such as the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Business Insider, and others. No need to focus unduly on the Christian Post, even though it's an entirely appropriate/independent source. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's off the mark. The Biologos statement says nothing about the literal truth of the bible; it describes it as the authoritative word of god, which is subtly different. The Chicago Statement is quite irrelevant; it's not a publication, and the reliability of folks who signed it would depend on what they are published in. The business insider piece is quite brief. The ADG source I do not have access to, and am unable to evaluate. Vanamonde (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point on Biologos and the Chicago statement is that saying you believe the "truth and authority" and the "inerrency" of the Bible means nothing in terms of your position on evolution.

The Business Insider article establishes the movie's wider cultural relevance, and raw word count isn't so important as compared to why they are writing about it. The ADG source is the newspaper of record of Arkansas. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to any counter to your views is simply to restate them, so this is a futile discussion. This has all been addressed. Your comment amounts to "but I still think X". Yes, I am sure you do. And others still disagree. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde IMO it would be a mistake to focus on the narrow question of explicit creationism anyway. This film can't be viewed in isolation from the decades long campaign by religious right to supplant evolution in the public school science curriculum. However, the Biologos pieces are blog posts anyway so not RS for establishing notability. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depends who's blogging, of course. A notable scientist who writes a film review on a blog can be cited. Actually, JzG|Guy, it would be kind of fabulous if you could persuade one or two notable evolutionary biologists to publish reviews of this film. It's a big ask (it takes far more time to write a scholarly review of a bad book or documentary film than of a good one,) but it would be a good thing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Yes, that's a thing the religious right has done, but with respect to such propaganda I'd honestly prefer a neutral article over no article at all. All I'm saying at the moment is that the Christian Post cannot be a reliable source for a description of the content of this film, and so we have a film that is not covered sufficiently in reliable independent sources. Vanamonde (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree. We have an article on the most morally reprehensible movie of recent decades, Vaxxed, based on widespread reliable coverage. I've worked to keep it up to scratch. I just wish someone outside the bubble would write about it. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources because JzG|Guy's comment might give the impression that no one "outside the bubble" has written about this film, I want to underline that he presumably refers to the fact that no one outside the bubble has written a formal review,or taken the time to deconstruct the film into the series of false assertions, straw man arguments, and misinterpretation of evidence that I take it to be. Just to be clear, we do have adequate sourcing in the mainstream press to keep this film as a film, but it is stuff like Variety (magazine) reporting that the one day nationwide special showing took in $2.7 million; Newsmax ranking it #12 among on a list of the "Top 25 Conservative Documentaries of All Time;" Business Insider discussing it in an article about "How religious movies are thriving more than ever before under Trump"; and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette running a sweet, home-town-boy-makes-film feature story, Daughter's queries prompted Genesis film. Even without formal reviews in mainstream media, mainstream sources already on the page satisfy WP:NFP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For all of the boldtext and accusations of bludgeoning (which is ironic for a couple reasons, not the least of which is you have the same number of edits to this page that I do), you're still just repeating the assertion that 1990sguy has been repeating -- that the copious press releases, brief mentions, terrible sources, local announcements, advocacy groups, etc. are actually stellar sources such that it doesn't matter if any of them actually review the film or provide any in-depth coverage of the film itself that doesn't come directly from the filmmaker's mouth. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Variety: "Box Office: Fathom Events Sees Soaring 2017 Performance (EXCLUSIVE)". So, a namecheck ina press release. And that is absolutely representative. There are no mainstream sources about the movie. Per WP:GNG, we require non-trivial coverage in reliable sources with intellectual independence from the subject. As in: not press releases, not namechecks, not interviews promoting the thing. That it fails WP:NFILM is beyond question, so we are into WP:NFRINGE, which mandates reality-based sources. You could make most of this argument go away by citing a single non-trivial article in a mainstream source that is (a) about the film and (b) not obviously based on a press release. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• REname -- Is Genesis History? (film). This is a feature length film putting forward a creationist view that many people consider pseudo-science. The young-earth creationist view exists and this film seems to have had a significant run. Personally, I believe that there was a creator, but not the young earth view of this. In my view, the amount of heat that this discussion is generating suggests that we should be keeping it. Nevertheless, the article currently has an ATTACK fell about it, not the required NPOV. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this excellent suggestion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep article obviously meets WP:NFILM, and sources like the Arkansas Democrat, Christian Post, and Business Insider are sufficiently independent to cite. Reviews like Biologos also give a good mainstream rebuttal to the movie, which IMO is trash. The WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:TENDENTIOUS aspects with the afd and rfc is obvious, and I think the closing admin should take action on this. desmay (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Desmay - Biologos is lovely, and it is also very specifically Christian - see its About us page - and a very specific form of Christianity at that. What is mainstream is way broader than that. And again, the elephant in the room here is that non-Christian media paid pretty much no attention to this movie. Just a few crickets.

That is the actual mainstream view of this movie. Ignoring this, is exactly the problem with most of the "keep" votes here.

Here let me copy a bit of it:

What We Believe

1) We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God....

11) We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church.

Again it is great that Christians had lovely discussion about it on that website among themselves. The world is much bigger than that and looking at NFILM, this fails by miles. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article clearly meets WP:NFILM. Excellent and strong sourcing from reliable sources.Knox490 (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sections of NFILM does it meet? I cannot find a single one. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG; the Christian Post coverage in particular is substantial and independent. There's no requirement for "mainstream film reviews" to keep an article on a film. Regarding the content disputes, I think the current version is a bit too sparse, but the Newsmax "Top 25 Conservative Documentaries of All Time" link is clickbait that we should avoided mentioning. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Power~enwiki: Does it not matter that the piece you've just linked is basically a compilation of press release material (see e.g. here, with plenty of word-for-word quotes copied in). Christian Post may be a notch above sources like WND/Newsmax/AiG/the plethora of other terrible sources being repeatedly mentioned as supporting notability, but it nonetheless unabashedly does uncritical (in the sense of film criticism -- not that it needs to be negative) promotional work for creationist filmmakers, authors, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The distinction between the movie's popularity and the fringeness of the content in the movie are two separate things. Disambiguating it would help like at least one editor above mentioned with "film". This movie was released last year in 2017 so it looks like it can still take some time before people dismiss it. Looking at the recent full version before this article was stripped to bare bones [23] looks reasonably sourced. To me it looks like a similar vein as The_Red_Pill, Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed or I would say even Forks_Over_Knives. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The amount of independent WP:RS citing the reviews of the film,[24][www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/os-movie-musings-is-genesis-history-0216-story.html] confirms that the subject meets GNG. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the film has enough rs coverage (does not have to be reviews) and needs to be made neutral which it is not at present and protected from the agenda pushers on both sides of the subject, also plenty of edit warring going on, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so how do we make it neutral? There are precisely zero reviews by film reviewers, only by creationists. In fact there are zero sources other than conservative Christian sites associated with the promotion of creationism as "science". What mainstream sources should we use? You imply there are plenty, yet diligent searches on both sides have found none. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Marquette University Student Media. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marquette University Television[edit]

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

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

Student television station. Article is poorly sourced and a WP:BEFORE search does turn up much of anything. It may have won a regional Emmy award for Student Commitment , but I can't verify that (I went to the Chicago emmy award website and couldn't find anything) and it doesn't really seem to be that notable of an award anyway. The article had to be written by someone who works there, the extensive list of the equipment the station owns is not encyclopedic at all. Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Marquette University. No indication of notability, merits maybe a sentence or two on the main page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we keep student radio stations all the time, can't think of a reason to not keep a student TV station for a University that has been broadcasting since 1976. Editing is the proper course of action here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Radio stations are usually assumed notable because they are broadcast over public airwaves. This is a closed-circuit cable tv station. From WP:BCAST "Cable television - Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable. Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable. A "governmental access" feed that runs a text generator of community events plus city council meetings for a population of 50,000 is not generally presumed notable, but can be conferred notability by meeting the standards set forth in WP:CORP." This station does not pass WP:CORP.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per Editorofthewiki. I can just about see that someone might search specifically for the station but there really isn't enough to justify more than perhaps a single sentence in the main university article. Paulmcdonald's statement shows a lack of understanding, as Rusf10 notes. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. I've been wrong before. I'll be wrong again. I leave it up to the closer of the discussion to make that call.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Marquette University Student Media which covers the different newspapers, journals, student radio (online) and student television (closed-circuit). It can be summarized as a section there if there is more to say besides the single line. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marquette University Student Media, which discusses this and is a better target than Marquette University. Student TV stations are rarely notable, and the current article has no inline referencing nor secondary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the University media article as suggested above Atlantic306 (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to California University of Pennsylvania. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California University Television[edit]

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

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

Unsourced college tv station article. A WP:BEFORE search comes up with no coverage. Rusf10 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Television system of what is not just a "college", but one a major university system, and a world-famous university system for good measure . There are reasonably sure to be sources, so it seems WP:BEFORe was ignored. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, it is a university, but not a major one. This is California University of Pennsylvania, not California State University. Even so, I definitely performed a BEFORE search, see WP:MUSTBESOURCES--Rusf10 (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the university is quite significant with 9400 students and the tv station does broadcast to 100,000 homes, if not online there should be offline sources considering its reach, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:MUSTBESOURCES--Rusf10 (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to California University of Pennsylvania. Not convinced the TV station is notable. Lots of colleges have TV stations and it may deserve a mention on the main article, but probably no spinoff. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to California University of Pennsylvania; not independently notable and no attempt to have sourced the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to California University of Pennsylvania. Should have a section on that page. There's not much to say beyond that, especially if not sourced or shown to be notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 30 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 11:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muni Pranamyasagar[edit]

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I seriously think that the person is notable. He has written commentaries on several Jain texts (most of which have independent wiki pages). This itself is notable. Moreover, independent sources are available, but they are majorly in Hindi language and some use a slightly different name (in English language). Several news articles are also there. I request a senior editor or admin to assess the article and its importance. –Nimit (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to think seriously, you need to establish the WP:N by providing here coverage. --Saqib (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a way of writing. I have cited numerous sources but only someone who read the complete article once will be able to see that. -Nimit (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide the coverage here. --Saqib (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: How does it fail WP: Notability? There are so many sources available. I have read that sources in other languages can also be added. Then, why are they being ignored?

• Violence can't bring peace– https://timesofindia.speakingtree.in/article/violence-can-t-bring-peace
• Muni Pranamya sagar addressed students in Kota, coaching hub of India – https://m.patrika.com/amp-news/kota-news/jain-muni-pranmya-sagar-in-allen-career-institute-kota-2556447/

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Look at each source none of them are indepth about Pranamyasagar and are about the event and visits to different states of India.

1. [25] This is about his visit to a private coaching institute. Which is hardly even a news.
2. [26] same goes with this, not about Pranamyasagar but about the event.
3. [27] Article by him about peace and non violence. No information about the individual. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: Several books in Hindi language do mention about him. Sources mentioned above are extra (not used on the page itself).-Nimit (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mention and cite the sources if it is so Accesscrawl (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Per AccessCrawl's analysis.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:07, 4 June 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. For lack of discussion. Can be renominated. Sandstein 09:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little Thinker[edit]

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

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

Not notable. WP:GNG not pass. Only one source, but not reliable. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Notable. Satisfies GNG. There is certainly a lot more than one reliable source. Selling over three million copies in three years [28] also satisfies NBOOK. James500 (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 28 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. Those arguing to keep state that this individual has multiple substantive roles in notable movies. Those arguing to delete state that it is not possible to create an article that complies with our standards for verifiability. Neither of these arguments can be disregarded, and as they are numerically equal, there is no consensus here. Vanamonde (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Taylor (actor)[edit]

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

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 04:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He clearly passes WP:NACTOR because he was part of multiple notable films, as seen in the filmography in the article. He had a prominent role in at least four of them: Shaft's Big Score!, Hangup, Peacemaker, and Cool Breeze. Emass100 (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in at least four notable films (not leading roles) References in the film articles confirm his roles, thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are no reliable sources to support this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:NACTOR. Inwind (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.WP:PERMASTUB that passes WP:NACTOR but according to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria this is not a must keep, so delete per WP:NOTDICT because this is not more than a dictionary entry and WP:Verifiability because the sources used for this article are all unreliable large databases such as IMDb known for their factual inaccuracy on less known persons(like mixing two different people with the same name).Nothing indicates that the actor is more than a WP:MILL actor.2001:A61:4E6:C500:5DD1:DCD9:3049:64D7 (talk) 16:18, 28 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. Per the uncontested comments to the effect that the sources aren't all that reliable. Sandstein 09:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girlkind[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NMG - no charted music Abdotorg (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdotorg: not all the group that debut their song were charted...Road boyz24 (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG as having reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject significantly.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. —Z0 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable? At least 5 of those sources are easily non-reliable, not to mention that they dont discuss the subject in detail (see that second source, looks like fancruft report based on twitter messages), while majority of other sources (kpopmap, allkpop, soompi, kcrush...) are never reliable, see WP:KO/RS. The only reliable sources (probably) in that list are the Indonesian one (but they only mentioned the group in literally one single sentence in their list of debuting groups in 2018, the article is not about the group itself), and that last source, which is not enough to cover GNG. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG...based on all the references it is from the relevant resources such as Naver....you need to read the references first..i know the group is underated but they deserved an article if they have a relevat resources in order to create an article..Road boyz24 (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom — there are plenty of other k-pop groups who would easily qualify for articles if you go purely by GNG that sources can be found, but that doesn’t mean they should all have an article when they fail NMG, surely the latter of the two guidelines should be what is more considered as it’s more related to the topic Alexanderlee (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If many potential articles meet GNG without NMG, then it's NMG that should be changed, not GNG. GNG always takes precedence over topic-specific guidelines. Habst (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom — no significant coverage yet, just basic press release/advertisement for promotions. Hasn't yet charted anywhere Evaders99 (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, sources listed are either not reputable or typical press-release kinds that you see with any new debut Asdklf; (talk) 18:41, 31 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.