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. Fenix down (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marystown United[edit]

Marystown United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [1])

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. KKKNL1488 (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No sources found aside from the three trivial ones already cited (and very similar ones), not even stats seem to be online. No evidence of notability. ComplexRational (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just so we know, the nominator has been banned for sockpupperty. HawkAussie (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm seeing over 300 articles in the Canadian newspaper archive, mostly in the first decade of the 2000s. Including national coverage, when the senior mens team played in the 2004 Canadian National Challenge Cup. Easily meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the article by adding a couple of these sources. Nfitz (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: As these sources are not publicly available, and seem to imply a very different picture than the delete !votes, I must ask: do these 300+ articles have substantiative, significant coverage? Or are there only trivial mentions similar to those few I found that do not demonstrate notability? If any of these articles are available without paywalls, could you please provide links? ComplexRational (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most appear to be game reports. And most are from St. Johns or Corner Brook (which is certainly not local!) newspapers. But a few seem more detailed, like the first (but not second) one I referenced. Sadly, the full articles aren't available, only abstracts, even with a subscription. Somebody would have to go through microfilm. There's certainly more than 3 trivial sources though. Article needs improving. Is the team still active - the coverage seems to die over a decade ago? Nfitz (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added four more references. Nfitz (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These additions look good, though I still feel that there isn't much content other than their 1999 and 2004 tournament appearances, and that the sources reaffirm the same statements rather than make new ones. Notability still appears borderline at best, unless there is significant content in these sources for expansion. ComplexRational (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. no sign of notability Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – though there are mentions, I'm not seeing in-depth/significant coverage to meet GNG – Levivich 02:28, 31 August 2019 (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. There's clearly no consensus to delete. I've gone back and forth on whether the keep arguments are really solid enough to call a consensus. I've written this closing statement several times already, each time as I went back to double-check what I'd written against the arguments, I changed my mind. So, I guess that really means NC is the right call. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glauben können wie du[edit]

Glauben können wie du (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)

Glauben können wie du is one of approximately 700 hymns^[a] published in the widely used Catholic hymnal the Gotteslob, used in the Catholic Church in German-speaking countries. It can be seen in this List of German hymns on de-wiki under 'G'. (For some reason, I don't see it listed here, but it is perhaps not the right regional version.) As previously noted on the article Talk page in this Notability discussion, this article fails WP:GNG. The article creator has done a good job of finding pretty much every scrap of information available about this hymn, but it still doesn't satisfy the Notability criteria. As mentioned at that discussion, some of the content may be usable at List of hymns in the German Catholic common hymnal, or at the composer's article; although as Gerda points out, there may be an WP:UNDUE issue in including too much information there. But that is a question for those articles, and needn't be taken up here. I sympathize with Gerda's interest, knowledge, and passion for the topic, but that's simply not how we base decisions on what topics are notable enough for the encyclopedia. An English equivalent of de:Liste von Kirchenliedern, de:Liste der Kirchenlieder im Evangelischen Gesangbuch, or de:Liste der Gesänge im Stammteil des Gotteslobs would be a great use of Gerda's talents, but this article should be deleted as not notable. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I speak no German, and don’t see it in the referenced talk page discussion, is there a refutation of all the sources that have been used? I don’t find the argument about sourcing to be particularly convincing, especially with reference to what other poetry articles don’t exist or contain. As an entry in an internationally-distributed hymnal, I think we have a situation similar to that contemplated by the chart-listing provision in WP:NSONG, for which an RfC might be appropriate. I would also ask whether the third point of WP:NSONG might apply, if it has been independently released as a recording by several notable organizations (which might include choirs or dioceses). I think there’s not enough information to !vote a particular way at this time, but I’m definitely leaning keep. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mendaliv: all the sources are either WP:PRIMARY, or they have no significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. Merely listing the name, author, and year along with several hundred other hymns that have the same type of mention, doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not convinced that the non-list sources are primary or otherwise unacceptable. Similarly I believe there is a WP:SNG exemption that may apply here, but that would likely require someone familiar with German religious music to confirm. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not too familiar with NSONG, so I'll leave it to others to figure that out. What I see looking at it, is that NSONG says, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject^[1] of multiple,^[2] non-trivial^[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." And this hymn has not been. NSONG also says, "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.". Imho, this non-notability argument (which I was not aware of before) would argue for a merge to Gotteslob, or Helmut Schlegel. Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Bit of a selective quotation there. Everything you’ve quoted is the standard recitation of WP:GNG in most or all SNGs so the SNG can’t be used to argue against inclusion for something that otherwise satisfies GNG. The specific portions of the guideline regarding publication of recordings and popularity need to be addressed, preferably by a German speaker. Until such point I think at worst this needs to be closed for failing to follow WP:BEFORE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I am a German speaker. I don't understand what you are asking for; what "needs to be addressed", please? Mathglot (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, regarding WP:BEFORE: all steps listed at BEFORE have already been covered at the article talk page in prior discussions about notability, including my posting there of the ((find sources)) link. I didn't think it necessary to copy those steps here into the Afd, but I can do so if necessary. The results of clicking through the eleven 'find sources' links demonstrate that with the exception of the seven poor sources already in the article (see discussion below), there's a string of zero results or false positives. Every reasonable reference on the internet is already in the article; there's nothing left out there. Non-internet based sources may exist, but need to be demonstrated. WP:BEFORE is thoroughly covered. Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, what is a "WP:SNG exemption", please? Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  An SNG exception is where we use the SNG as an alternative to GNG, rather than as an indication that GNG will be met. An obvious example is WP:NPROF where we accept other criteria to grant notability to some academics who do not satisfy GNG because those academics are underrepresented in mainstream media, and hence sources, compared to their encyclopedic value. It is accepted by the community as useful in redressing the bias caused by certain topics not attracting the same attention as others which are more "populist". HTH --RexxS (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it does, RexxS, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of sources[edit]

Above, Mendaliv asked about the quality of the sources. So, I thought I would go over them (the numbers are wikilinks):

• 1. This is a one-page essay about the lyrics, written by two authors in the Diocese of Limburg. Author Christine Sauerborn-Heuser is not listed in WorldCat title search; web search shows she is (or was) co-speaker of the parish. There is a 'Manuel Braun' n WorldCat (or several of them) writing about law, literature, and medieval history; and one who is a Church Musician in the same parish as Christine.
• 2. Just a listing of the lyrics, without comment.
• 3. Trivial mention; #885 among 893 songs.
• 4. Trivial mention; #132 among 169 songs.
• 5. A musical score. A one-page summary of this source can be found here. Ref 5 mentions page 230, which I can't access; according to the Table of Contents (here) that page is in the "Libretto" section. Not present in Google books. Present in WorldCat, here.
• 6. This was written by Pastor Konrad Perabo, Pastor of the Heilig Kreuz Church parish of Geisenheim, Germany, on 28 May, 2019. It appears to be his introduction of this hymn to his congregants, as part of his sermon, or in addition to it, in October the previous year. In it, he explains how and why this hymn is particularly appropriate to sing in October, the "second biggest Month of Mary of the year".

The pastor makes his introduction to this series of monthly précis at the bottom of the page, saying: "After the summer holidays, we begin our parish letter with a new series entitled, 'A Treasury of Praising God'. In it, I would like to share with you some old and new songs from our hymn book. But we will also introduce some prayer texts, which are recommended for personal use." Text of his October comments follow.

• 7. This is an archive.org page is about "Church music from the Diocese of Limburg". The page shown, is a listing of all the musicians in various parishes in the diocese available for church services. However, I can't find a reference to the article topic there. Perhaps at one of the tabs listed on the page?

The most substantial of these sources are #1, and #6. Note that Google translate does a pretty decent job of translating running text in these sources, sufficient to give the gist of the content. If there are any particular passages of interest needed, I'll be happy to translate them. Mathglot (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC) updated to add material to #6; by Mathglot (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 1, 5, and 6 are good sources, 2 is good, if only for the lyrics, while 3 and 4 can be called "mentions", but I struggle to see anything "trivial". Shortness is not the same as triviality. I can find nothing relevant at 7, so it seems likely that page has been changed. Moonraker (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pretty much per Moonraker. Three good sources plus some others amount to sufficient coverage for a song in a genre that's never going to attract the same mainstream coverage as any modern pop song, despite almost certainly being performed far more often. --RexxS (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep strike due to filer's concern that being interested in a song you happily sing in concert and church services, and which is printed in freely available official hymnals, constitutes any conflict of interest, changing to (Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)) :[reply]

Comment per what I said on the talk. Ref seven is there to source, that of the Manuel Brauns, it's the organist who can talk about a melody professionally. This song was made part of a choral-symphonic work (ending a section, with audience participation, - listen), similar to those that Bach used in his Christmas Oratorio. Why is that sufficient for an 18th-century hymn (Fröhlich soll mein Herze springen) to establish that we should know about it, but not for this new one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources are good enough and notability is good enough. The bar for what is notable is not the same for all topics-a comparing of apples and oranges situation. Mainstream media sells papers on sensationalism so we cannot expect to find sources for a hymn where we might for other kinds of music. As with academics, certain kinds of books and more, within a specific kind of community we might find notability and significant use but the average newspaper or person would never know anything about this. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my above comments and comments of the others herein. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment – This seems a clear Delete to me, first for lack of multiple, independent, reliable sources, and secondly because everything on the internet is already in the article. I'm surprised by some of the arguments above, and wonder if we are looking at the same policies; certainly we are interpreting them differently. Sources #3 and #4 accepted here by some as non-trivial, are more trivial than the Clinton-Three Blind Mice example given at WP:SIGCOV as the definition of "plainly a trivial mention". Sources #2 and #5 are the content itself: that is, the lyrics, and the music, respectively, without additional original comment of any kind; if accepted as notable, this would mean that every song whose lyrics or sheet music were available in a database might have claim to notability, which I don't think was the intent of the policy. There are some claims made about #7, but I cannot see what Gerda claims to; to me, it appears to have no mention of the hymn at all. That leaves two sources, #1 and #6, which are questionable, and a shaky basis upon which to rest Notability. As mentioned above under 'Discussion of sources', #1 was co-written by members of a Limburg parish church, and might fall under WP:SPS as it is published by the local Church website. In any case, the authors are non-notable any published writing, independent or otherwise; maintaining that this one-page monograph written by the local parish spokesperson and published at the parish website (possibly by her) provides notability to the topic seems really a stretch to me.

That leaves #6, the source with the most direct reference to the article topic, imho: the Pastor's service notes, for 2018–2019. This is a month-by-month summary of the Pastor's choice of hymns that are appropriate for that month, and why. As it is the strongest source we have, I've translated it in its entirety, and added it above. The tone and substance of the writing is in the manner of a sermon, unsurprisingly. This is not independent commentary either about the lyrics, or about the music, by a notable author trained in either discipline, but an explanation by a clergyman of why this particular hymn was chosen to be sung in services during that particular month. This is not a criticism of his piece for what it is, but I don't believe it's the kind of independently published piece which we expect in order to establish notability for a poem, or a song. Also, it's self-published.

I would like to see multiple (three?) fully independent, secondary, reliable sources for this topic before declaring it notable. Why isn't there even one? And even at the level of self-published commentary by clergy or parish spokespeople, why aren't there hundreds of them, given the number of Christian parishes around the world, if this is a hymn of such importance? I don't see how one can claim Notability for this topic, but if I'm somehow missing something about policy and it is deemed notable, then it should be merged to Gotteslob (hymn book in which it appears), or to Helmut Schlegel (author) as it will never grow beyond a stub. Mathglot (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Mathglot (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendaliv (talk • contribs) 21:49, August 29, 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't think it was a "vote" unless it's in the voting section, bulleted, and bolded. Struck the bolded word, replaced with "Comment". Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible taint[edit]

An issue possibly affecting evaluation of this Afd has been raised here. Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance for the purposes of gauging notability, nor for evaluating !votes by others. I don't think there's any "taint" to this AfD at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's no relevance for gauging notability, but disagree about the evaluation of !votes, however. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Now moot. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Helmut Schlegel where the hymn is listed among his works (it is not listed in the Joachim Raabe article, so Schlegel seems to be the obvious redirect) - the hymn is not notable enough for a stand-alone article - WP:NSONG says, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" - that doesn't appear to be the case here - there is no indication that the hymn has reached any kind of prominence or wide circulation or distribution or notability - Epinoia (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2019 (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. Normally, I would have closed this as Redirect, but Epinoia's arguments convinced me that delete makes more sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lutwyche City Shopping Centre[edit]

Lutwyche City Shopping Centre (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 found no significant coverage, mostly routine run of the mill coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Redirect (Depending on whether anything is salvageable from the article) to Lutwyche, Queensland. Bookscale (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do not delete this article. I am the original author of the article and created the article as the Lutwyche Shopping Centre is a significant landmark in the suburb. I am also the Junior Vice-President of the historical society that covers the centre and have much information to contribute to the article. I created this article well before I was involved with the society but now have access to new information that I have started adding to the article since it was flagged for deletion. Colmiga (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Colmiga, thanks for being willing to improve the article and add additional information. Please note that Wikipedia has policies about general notability requirements as well as a requirement that reliable sources be added to articles to substantiate their notability. The shopping centre article currently has a single source that deals with the introduction of 2 hour paid parking in September 2019 which is not sufficient to suggest that it needs its own article. If you have secondary sources that document the history of the complex (they don't have to be online sources- books are fine) then feel free to list them here so other users can be informed that the shopping centre is indeed notable enough to have its own article. You will need to eventually add those sources to the article. Bookscale (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Having looked at the notability requirements it would be better to merge the article into the Lutwyche article. While the centre is the community hub of the suburb since the main shopping area has been diminished over time, I cannot think of a thing that sets it apart from other shopping centres of its type. Merging would also make it easier to maintain. This is sad to see a 12 year old article being deleted but if it cannot stand on its own I understand. Perhaps if something else is found about the centre in the future that makes it notable then it can be made into a separate article again. The only 2 unique things about the centre that set it apart I can think of off the top of my head is that the original escalators came from the TC Beirne building in Fortitude Valley and the Coles Supermarket was the first in Brisbane to be a combined New World Supermarket and Variety Store. I do have sources but will have to look in my Historical Society's physical files to locate them again. Colmiga (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the biggest problem is that the article appears to be all original research WP:NOR - this shopping centre has not received significant coverage per WP:NBUILD, which says "commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" - the shopping centre is not mentioned in the Lutwyche, Queensland article (an indication of its lack of prominence), so there can't be a redirect unless it is merged - is it notable enough to merge? - even if merged it would need citations in the Lutwyche article or it will be deleted as Original Research (the link to a Courier Mail article is not working so impossible to tell if that article mentions more than the free parking) - it appears to be a non-notable run-of-the-mill shopping centre of local interest only - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - dunno if IPs can comment here but, anyway, here goes! This has been virtually unsourced since creation in October 2008. The single source is about a tangential car parking issue. Since there is nothing substantial sourced there is nothing to be merged; we can't merge unsourced material. Fails WP:GNG. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I would wonder if List of Pennsylvania fire departments should exist, given that almost none(if not none) of the list members have standalone articles, which I why I did not redirect. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Department of Montgomery Township[edit]

Fire Department of Montgomery Township (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)

With all due respect, I do not see how this is notable. Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no claim of notability. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep direct your attention to other fire department pages in the state of PA. Just as notworthy as this one. More information will be added. jrm101699 —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them listed at List of Pennsylvania fire departments do not satisfy WP:GNG and should not have separate articles.----Pontificalibus 20:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Pennsylvania fire departments. A search turned up no significant coverage. ----Pontificalibus 20:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC) changing to delete per Justlettersandnumbers's reasoning below.--Pontificalibus 05:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I respectfully disagree. Citing specific instances of this department in the news showing its notability: Here, Here, and Here. I can continue to show its notability. --Jrm101699 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Montgomery Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania#Fire Department. Chris857 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not redirect. This does not come near to meeting WP:NCORP, any more than do the very few other Pennsylvania small-town fire department pages. The title is not likely to be useful as a redirect, as there appear to be about eighteen Montgomery Townships in the United States alone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a department of a city has to be a lot larger than this to justify a free standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, if not delete may redirect to List of Pennsylvania fire departments, Alex-h (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is the best solution for this. scope_creep^Talk 13:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it cant stay an article on its own. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As there are multiple Montgomery Townships in the US, a redirect would do little good. Taewangkorea (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2019 (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. Fenix down (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Corberán[edit]

Carlos Corberán (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 fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS77 ^✉ 18:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject passes WP:NFOOTY has been the Manager of Doxa Katokopias FC which was playing in 2016–17 Cypriot First Division which is a Fully professional league [2].Hence managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues.Did not check GNG but there appears to be coverage particurly as he was with Leeds U23.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - pretty clear pass of NFOOTY, two spells as manager in the Cypriot First Division (listed at WP:FPL) per Soccerway. Quick Google search brings up [3], [4], [5] & [6]. Likely more out there, esp. from his time in Cyprus. R96Skinner (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles like this clearly amount to significant coverage. They tell us extensive information about his career. They are sufficient sources upon which to base a short and verifiable wikipedia biography. He passes the general notability guideline with room to spare, despite soccer being a minor sport in Leeds after rugby league.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, behind Crown Green Bowls too. R96Skinner (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 21:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL, likely meets GNG. GiantSnowman 11:54, 26 August 2019 (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)} 18:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's Brightest Minds[edit]

Tomorrow's Brightest Minds (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)

Only references are to its own websites. Fundamentally a BLP. Rathfelder (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable per WP:BIO. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with above, fails WP:NCORP as an organization, fails BIO otherwise. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find any mentions at all in newspapers.com. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO and fails WP:NCORP as an organization.Knox490 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP as an organization and also fails WP:BIO Taewangkorea (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hendricks Day School[edit]

Hendricks Day School (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)

School only went through eighth grade, so it was not a high school. The only independent coverage we have of this school was the article about it shutting down. This seems to fail either the general or school-specific measures of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if this were an extant school, I'd say redirect it to the community. It's not. It's worth noting that the article at hand was created by the school's marketing team. John from Idegon (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we only keep articles on sub-secondary schools where there are very clear signs of notability which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2019 (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 Nominator has withdrawn on the basis of finding adequate sourcing. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urtatagai conflict (1913)[edit]

Urtatagai conflict (1913) (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)

At least one of the sources says nothing a about this conflict as far as I can tell. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I presume that User:Slatersteven is talking about the first (english) source i used for the article. While that source mostly talks about the Urtatagai conflict of 1925-1926, it does briefly mention the 1913 conflict, which i quoted in the reference - "In 1913, after the large island of Urta-Tugai (on the Panj River) merged with the Afghan bank, the Afghans took advantage of this existing situation and sent their forces to the island, resulting in a border conflict." I presume that Slatersteven might have expected "Urtatagai conflict" to be mentioned by name, which it isn't because i had to invent a name, since there wasn't one to begin with. Additional details were added from a second Russian source, which also doesn't provide a name. Koopinator (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I found it and withdraw the AFD.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2019 (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. It seems like the sole keep argument does not actually establish notability nor does it indicate that the content is needed anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent American Party[edit]

Independent American Party (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)

Small political party with no elected officers or noteworthy performances. Tags have existed on this article for years Article is sourced almost exclusively to the party itself; per WP:ORGCRIT, political parties must have received significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources - this article fails this. The only two citations to non-IAP sources are ballotaccessnews.com (a WordPress blog) and St. George’s News, an online free website that is not a newspaper and more or less seems to be an ad for the IAP. There is a link to an article from the Salt Lake Tribune, but this is not significant coverage: it merely documents that the party exists and that it wanted to be on the ballot. Per wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, ThoughtCo is a self-published source, again failing our standards for citations. This party simply doesn’t seem to be notable and should be deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the article, they do have (or had) elected officials: "The IAP of Nevada has elected several candidates to local office, such as District Attorney, County Commissioner, County Clerk, and other local offices." Obviously the article is a shambles. --JBL (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, it’s in awful shape. That appears to be from a separate political party (in poor shape as well), not an affiliate or the same as this one. Toa Nidhiki05 13:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. It's not clear to me from either article whether the two parties (Nevada and national) have ever been affiliated. If not, this article is in even worse shape than it seemed. --JBL (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Nevada one seems to have been an affiliate of the Constitution Party and was founded 3 decades before this party. I doubt these two parties were ever connected beyond having similar names. Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There were parties of this name in several states and they were connected with George Wallace, as the article explains. There is coverage in sources such as Left, Right, Out: The History of Third Parties in America and American Political Parties in the 21st Century. Perhaps the various state organisations should be merged but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source one is for the American Independent Party, not the Independent American Party. Source 2 clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT’s trivial coverage standard. Toa Nidhiki05 10:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: please read the article more carefully: the connection with Wallace is entirely notional (it was founded in the 1990s), and (per the discussion above) the notable Nevada state party with this name seems never to have been affiliated with this party. --JBL (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splitters!. Insofar as there is confusion, we should have a page which clarifies the matter for our readers. Andrew D. (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone would be confused, and regardless this is not a valid reason to keep a page that does not meet our notability guidelines. Toa Nidhiki05 12:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone would be confused At least, if this article did not spend significant space on the unrelated NV party, confusion would be much less likely. --JBL (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As JBL said, if it didn’t mention the other party there wouldn’t be anything to mention. Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are two types of information in this article: sourceable information about a notable state political party with a long history, and information about a national party with no elected officials that is cited only to pages maintained by that party. This would be a case of cleanup needed, except that the notable state party is not affiliated with or related to the national party, except by the coincidence of name. Removing the material about the IAP of Nevada leaves nothing to indicate notability. Even if it were abstractly possible to support a page about this party (I don't think so, but hypothetically), nothing that appears at present would be useful. --JBL (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Put all information relevant to the Independent_American_Party_of_Nevada in that article and delete this one. I can't find any sort of notability. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Film Registry films (A–D)[edit]

List of National Film Registry films (A–D) (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)

List of National Film Registry films (A–D)

List of National Film Registry films (E–H)

List of National Film Registry films (I–L)

List of National Film Registry films (M–P)

List of National Film Registry films (Q–T)

List of National Film Registry films (U–Z)

These sublists of National Film Registry are pretty useless content forks. The whole point of having sortable lists is that you can sort the whole list, not just a sublist. People will typically be interested in the list of, say, films on the National Film Registry that were released in the 1960s. Nobody is interested in knowing the films on the National Film Registry that were released in the 1960s and whose title begins with a B. Spinning off these sublists (of a featured list no less!) accomplishes nothing. We want to direct our readers to the most likely to be useful article and that is clearly National Film Registry. Furthermore, keeping these lists doubles the work necessary to keep the info up to date. Pichpich (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because the table at National Film Registry is sufficient, and since it is sortable, it strongly indicates that the content should stay together. Furthermore, this is a Featured List, so we know it went through the Featured List Candidate vetting process without this being a concern. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be an un-needed WP:CONTENTFORK split of the main article, which is a featured list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them all as an undiscussed split that's worse than useless--it actually makes the information less convenient.—Chowbok ☠ 00:47, 25 August 2019 (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 draftified. Procedural close, the article has been moved to the draft-space, again. Given the comments in this, and previous AfD, next time the article should go through "articles for creation process"; rather than being published directly. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gourish Singla[edit]

Gourish Singla (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)

Per previous AFD (closed procedurally): "Articles looks like promo for the subject and his company. Current sourcing is a couple of entries in directories, a passing mention, and his company's website - can't find any better sourcing - fails WP:BASIC." Previous close was making the article a draft - but it hasn't improved at all. WP:BEFORE shows nearly no mainstream coverage. Current coverage is largely blockchain sites and other non-RSes. David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Moot - article has been made draft again. I deleted the cross-namespace redirect - David Gerard (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a contributor one can remove the promotional tone. Tell me what to delete and toning up the content --Babitahamdard (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2019 (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) 03:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Democratic Party presidential rallies[edit]

2020 Democratic Party presidential rallies (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 is (and I believe always will be) an incomplete list. A major issue is already going to be presented in defining what a "rally" is. Many events that might be called rallies are not advertised as such. Warren, for instance, hosts many gatherings called "organizing events" and "town halls", but these appear to be rallies. SecretName101 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete By the time the election rolls around, thousands upon thousands of rallies will have been held for Democratic candidates. If people care that much about campaign rallies, there are websites that do that stuff. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Folks, if we really feel one page would be too lengthy or too long for all rallies, could we use that page to link to separate subpages documenting all rallies of the candidates then? Golfpecks256 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Far too crufty to list every event held by every candidate during a very long campaign. Perhaps the individual candidates' campaign article can list major events but this is excessive. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Folks, if we really feel one page would be too lengthy or too long for all rallies, could we use that page to link to separate subpages documenting all rallies of the candidates then? Golfpecks256 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Folks, we've had a page that lists all of Trump's rallies. Also, a rally should be an event that is not a town hall or gathering. It should be officially labeled as such by the campaign in order to be listed. I don't see why deleting it is necessary. Golfpecks256 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't think a list of any rally is necessarily relevant. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 06:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Folks, if we really feel one page would be too lengthy or too long for all rallies, could we use that page to link to separate subpages documenting all rallies of the candidates then? Golfpecks256 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Golfpecks256 has a point. Not only is there a page that lists all 323 of Trump's rallies from the 2016 presidential campaign, but there's a second page that lists all ~75+ of his post-campaign rallies. No other presidential candidate past or present has a list of their rallies but Trump is an exception? Also thousands upon thousands of rallies is an incredible over-exaggeration. Many candidates are likely to drop before the Democratic nomination is clinched, or even before the Iowa caucuses, and not every candidate is rallying daily or even weekly. Please point me to a website that documents Democratic candidate rallies because my Google-Fu has turned up nothing. I am in favor of either keeping this page as is, or splitting the page off into individual lists of rallies for each of the candidates. --Peterljr888 (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Golfpecks256 and Peterljr888. There is currently only one article for all democratic candidates, while Trump has two. Also, an article should not be deleted just because it is incomplete. This is a slippery slope that implicates a plethora of other incomplete articles. If you feel that an article is incomplete, you can help by improving it. Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The problem with upkeep is easily solved. Just cover the major rallies and summarize the state of the minor rallies. And there are these two articles: List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign and List of post-election Donald Trump rallies. But it may be premature to start the article now given there is no clear front runner and the crowd sizes are not very comparable to Trump rallies. And if Joe Biden manages to win the nomination it could be a repeat of the 2016 elections where the Democrats have a contender who lacks a very enthusiastic base that attends big rallies. Right now, some Biden allies are advising that Biden have short days to conserve his energy because when he is tired later in the day, he has a tendency to make gaffes.[7] Maybe having such an article would make sense if Elizabeth Warren were to become a front runner since she is generating some enthusiasm among her base and having much bigger crowds than Biden (Warren had 6,000 to 15,000 people show up at a rally).[8] (Breitbart said the crowd size was around 6,000 people). Knox490 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is hilarious an encyclopedia has such content. The similar Trump articles, instead of serving as an argument to keep this one, are a good reason why this should be deleted: to discourage editors from creating more similar redundant pages. Those Trump articles should be deleted too. Since the editors of this article have put considerable effort, a summary of the content can be placed on other relevant articles. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all similar pages on rallies. Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and also nominate the Trump ones. WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 10:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Piling on, per Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also nominated those other two lists, for good measure: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rallies for the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign czar 00:54, 3 September 2019 (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. Procedural keep. Apart from most people expressing some form of "keep" opinion, this is a topic that is better discussed on the talkpage, not at AfD. Renaming, restructuring, things like that. Tone 08:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arab and Middle Eastern Americans in the United States Congress[edit]

List of Arab and Middle Eastern Americans in the United States Congress (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 AfD might strike people as odd. At first blush, the page seems like an anodyne piece of demographic interest, no different to "list of Native American members of Congress." So why the AfD? I ask you to bear with me because it will take some time to explain my rationales, although they are rock-solid.

In sum: the page must be deleted because it fails (and will inevitably fail, as I argue below) the standards of the encyclopedia in terms of WP:V and WP:RS.

There are two key ways in which the page fails (and will inevitably fail) WP:V and WP:RS. First, the page relies on WP:OR, rather than reliable sources, to determine who is Middle Eastern. Second, the page relies on WP:OR, rather than reliable sources, to determine who is Arab. As I will show, the problem of OR is unfixable because (due to the nature of the definition of “Middle Eastern," which unlike, e.g., "sub-Saharan African" is extremely fuzzy and controversial) it is impossible to verify the claims as to who is Middle Eastern. I propose the deletion of the page and the creation of new pages with the same information that do not violate WP:V and WP:RS.

Unverified/OR claims to as who is Middle Eastern

The page relies on WP:OR to determine who is Middle Eastern. People of Iranian, Armenian, and Georgian descent (countries often included in the Middle East) and Ashkenazi Jews (who are partially descended from the Levant, and often identify with their ancestral roots), are excluded for no reason but OR, despite being considered "Middle Eastern Americans" on the wikipedia page on that subject, as well as being considered as such by the US Census Bureau.

There are no sources cited in the page as to which of the Congresspersons are Middle Eastern, and since the definition of the Middle East itself is fuzzy and controversial, there will never be such sources. (To illustrate how fuzzy the region is: many commentators would consider Turkey Middle Eastern, others would say it’s part of Europe; many would include Armenia and Georgia while others would not; many would include Sudan, and others would not. Others still would exclude the Levant and all countries West of the Gulf.) Following the census definition would not add any additional clarity; this too is controversial and was on the verge of being changed in 2016, to exclude Armenians and Georgians.

The subjectivity of the definition of Middle Eastern leads to an inevitable problem of lack of verifiability. This problem is showcased by the completely OR talk page debates about who does or does not “count” as Middle Eastern, as well as the absence of reliable sources in the article. In particular, the editor User:AuH2ORepublican has been active in removing former members of Congress of Armenian and Jewish descent from the page, based on nothing but OR. As silly and vulgar as this kind of amateur ethnic line-drawing is, no one can say AuH20 is "wrong" in his definition of Middle Eastern, and his exclusion of Armenians and Jews therefrom. And this is exactly my point: There is no way to present a verifiable, RS-supported list of "Middle Eastern Congresspeople," so it must be deleted.

Unverified/OR Claims to as who is Arab, which contradict the non-Arab identity of those cited as Arabs

There is an even more glaring and embarrassing OR/WP:V problem: the overwhelming majority of the people on this page didn’t/don’t identify as Arab, yet we are labeling them as such based on our own opinions about who should be considered Arabs. Specifically, the vast majority of the people on the page are Lebanese Christians. This ethnic group tends not to identify as Arab (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_people#Identity). It is extremely disrespectful to label them as “Arabs”, not to mention an expression of OR and inaccurate on the merits in most if not all of these cases.

So the page, in implicitly rejecting the ethnic identities of the Lebanese Christians (and instead insisting that we are Arabs, contrary to our identity and also contrary to genetic testing showing we are more closely related to Mediterranean Europeans than Gulf Arabs or North Africans) is not only a failure in terms of WP:RS and WP:V, but offensive, insofar as it imposes an ethnic identity on people which they do not or didn’t accept.

Again, the editor User:AuH2ORepublican has been active in insisting that Congresspersons of partial or full Lebanese descent be labeled "Arabs" and included on this page, stating that it is irrelevant whether these people identify as Arab, and they must be included on the page of Arabs elected to the Congress. He cites no sources for his OR view that we (Lebanese Christians) are Arabs regardless of how we identify. I don't accuse him of bad faith, but I instead cite him as an expression of how unverifiable and OR-based the assertions on the page are.

Proposal

So, my proposal? Delete this page (on grounds of WP:V and WP:RS, as described above) and create a new page for "Arab American Congress members," that is not combined with the vast and nebulous category “Middle Eastern congresspersons.” There we should list anyone who 1) identifies as Arab and 2) is fully or partially descended from an Arabic speaking country. (For example, Ilhan Omar is from Somalia where Arabic is one of the official languages; since she identifies as Arab we should include her, but we shouldn’t automatically include all future Somali-American Congresspersons in this category, unless they identify as such, since many Somali people reject an Arab identity.) That will solve the problems of OR, V, and offensiveness.

I don’t think we should re-create a “Middle Eastern Congressmembers” page because the category is too broad and fuzzy and diverse to be descriptively useful, and will inevitably lead to problems of verifiability. People who are interested in the subject of American representatives from the region should instead create pages like “List of Armenian-American congressmembers” or “List of Lebanese-American Congressmembers” or “list of Egyptian-American Congresspersons”, which can have all of this information and will not have to rely on OR. GergisBaki (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Delete Combining the extremely broad (and fuzzy) categories of Middle Eastern and Arab in one page is a total disaster, the page should be deleted. I am fine creating a separate "Arab-American Congresspersons" but OP's point about self-identification is important to keep in mind when we do create that. Arab identity is controversial and new outside of Arabia (the Gulf Arabs), and we shouldn't label anyone as Arab (apart from literal Arabians, e.g. Saudis) without RS evidence that they self-identify as such. Steeletrap (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons set forth under "Discussion" below. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issues raised by GergisBaki are substantial, however they do not merit the deletion of the article, which is a commendable effort to compile a list of Congressman/Congresswomen from the same ethnic background. The said list is similar to many other lists on Wikipedia of Congressman/Congresswomen from different ethnic/national backgrounds and is of encyclopedic value to the common reader on the internet. A number of good points have been raised by Steeletrap and AuH2ORepublican; this being said, it's clear this is an issue with semantics or the title of the article, rather than deleting this prodigious article, we should discuss a newer title that avoids the controversies raised by the said editors. George Al-Shami (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is eurocentric nonsense, attempting to racially or ethnically classify the populations of such a vast region into "Middle East," regardless of personal identity. By the way, while AuH20 may not know this, Arab identity outside of Arabians is a 20th century invention, and is very tenuous and controversial. It is extremely dubious to label a group of Lebanese American Christians (including people who are 1/4 or less Lebanese Christian like Charlie Christ) "Arabs" without citation. For the reason Gergis says, it is impossible to find reliable sources for this so the page should be deleted. A new page can be created that only includes those people who identify as Arab, and gets

(Full disclosure: OP emailed me about this thread. We have corresponded in the past after working on a completely different page concerning the law, and are both Lebanese Americans and have discussed Lebanese identity. I thought I should disclose this. But while OP flagged this page for me he certainly didn't influence my opinion to delete.) PlainLawSam08 (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the issues are substantial, but I don't agree that they amount to a justification for deleting the article. That being said, amalgamating Arab with Middle Eastern Americans is awkward, for the reasons discussed. Each (overlapping) category deserves its own article: "Arab Americans in the United States Congress" for people who identify as Arab, and "Middle Eastern Americans in the United States Congress" for people who, say, have held citizenship of a country in the Middle East. Joe in Australia (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR Rename Despite my AfD, I would be fine with keeping the article so long as it is renamed. Middle Eastern needs to go. The article should simply be renamed to Arab Americans Congresspersons. Then we can proceed to the talk page and debating the issue of whether Lebanese Christians (or 1/4 Lebanese Christians like Charlie Christ) who do not identify as Arab should be included based on OR about who Arabs are, in spite of the fact that most Leb Christians do not identify as Arab. GergisBaki (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My only question (and the reason I'm still a delete for now) is whether it's possible to rename articles. Is it? Please reply to this comment explaining how to rename an article if it is. GergisBaki (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the reasons stated by AuH2ORepublican and George Al-Shami in the discussion below. QuestFour (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a very well-written nomination statement. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve, which may possibly entail a split into two or more articles, or imposition of stringent rules for citation of sources. bd2412 T 04:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

This article was created after a British editor, based on how the term "Asian" is used in the UK (but unfamiliar with how the term is used in the U.S.), wanted to add Arab-American members of Congress to the article on Asian-American (and Pacific-Islander) members of Congress. I recommended to him, and he accepted, adding "and Middle-Eastern Americans" to the title because otherwise it would exclude persons from Arab countries who are not Arab speakers, such as persons of Assyrian (aka Chaldean), Turkish, Persian, Kurdish, etc. descent.

While Arab Americans are not considered ethnic minorities under U.S. federal law and do not comprise an individual category under the U.S. Census, they nevertheless are deemed--by themselves and by society writ large--as an ethnicity within the Caucasian race, with use of the Arabic language by their forebears and certain traditions and cultural norms being the main points of commonality. While sub-groups within the Arab diaspora sometimes prefer to focus on differences between the groups--no one claims that there are no differences between Lebanese Christians and Saudi Arabian Muslims--the term "Arab American" is one that generally is used to describe the descendants of all such peoples.

I do not claim to be an expert on sociological characteristics of descendants of Lebanese Christians, but, anecdotally, I can tell you that my grandfather, who was the child of Lebanese Christians from the Zgartha/Eden region of North Lebanon, considered himself an Arab American. So does my father-in-law, also the child of Lebanese Christians from (a different part of) North Lebanon. It isn't that they didn't or don't acknowledge the differences among Arab sub-groups, or that they ignore that they descended from Phoenicians while people from, say, Yemen likely didn't, but they still considered all Arabic-speaking peoples to be fellow Arabs. This dichotomy is no different from that of Cuban-Americans who consider people from other parts of Latin-Americans to be fellow Latinos despite recognizing that Argentines and Hondurans and Cubans do not have identical cultures.

As for GergisBaki's characterization of the removal by myself and other editors of edits in which persons with non-Arab and non-Middle Eastern ancestry (such as Armenians from the Caucasus, and European Jews who immigrated in the 1930s to what later became the State of Israel) had been included in the article, such decisions were taken by consensus, with discussion in the Talk page. If the issue of including "Middle Eastern" in the title (so as not to exclude Assyrians and such) is creating more controversy than such article can withstand, then I guess that "Middle Eastern" can be excised from the title and only persons of Arab ancestry would be included (which would exclude Congressman Benjamin and Congresswoman Eshoo, as well as future non-Arab Middle Easterners in Congress), but certainly it wouldn't be grounds to delete the entire article.

In addition, it would be futile (and a violation of NPOV) to try to establish whether an American of Lebanese descent "identifies as Arab American" (particularly when we're talking about people long dead), as GergisBaki proposes, just as it would be inappropriate to second-guess the Latino bona fides of a Mexican-American who is proud of his Mexican heritage but is not into Pan-Hispanicism. There shouldn't be a test prepared by an editor with a particular POV to determine whether a descendant of an Arab-speaking people "truly is" an Arab.

So that's my two-cents' worth on this issue. As always, I welcome the opinion of other editors interested in this article. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, Au, can we say you are in favor of deleting the page and creating a new Arab-American Congresspersons page, and scrapping Middle Eastern? I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you basically favor a delete while disagreeing on what the content of what the Arab American Congresspersons page should be.

On the issue of whether we should include all Lebanese: I still think Gergis has the right of this. You say that Arab is a sub-group of white but the reality is a lot fuzzier and more controversial than you think, which makes sense because racial categories like white/Caucasian are themselves social constructs, with only crude relations to biology. Rashida Taliba, for example, is generally referred to as a racial minority (i.e. non-white) by the press, despite being Arab. Danny Thomas, the legendary Lebanese American actor, was not referred to as Arab or non-white. And as Gergis states many ethnicities (Lebanese, Somalis, Sudanese, Egyptians, etc) can't agree about whether they are Arabs or something else.

Our own Wikipedia page Arab American makes self-identification a requirement of being an Arab in a way we don't make self-identification a requirement of being, for example, Japanese or African-American. We should uphold that on the Arab Americans page and (apart from obvious cases, e.g. people literally from Arabia) only include as Arabs those who identify this way.

To emphasize the lack of clarity as to the definition of Arab, let me note that the US Census Bureau is currently debating changing Arabs from Caucasian to some other race, based on the experience of many Arabs in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Americans#Arab-American_identity

In any case, regardless of who is more persuasive on an anthropological level, the fact remains that (because the issue is controversial) there is no way to verify Arab-ness apart from self-identification. And thus we shouldn't list people as Arab who don't identify as such. Steeletrap (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is not to exclude Assyrian Americans, who come from Arab-majority countries and share similar experiences in Americans as Arab immigrants and their descendants, just because the term "Middle Eastern" can lead to some hard cases. But I will support whatever the consensus is.

As for the whole "Arabs may not be white" spiel, that's absolutely POV, and something that is rejected by almost all Arabs (albeit perhaps not by Congresswoman Tlaib, who insists that any criticism of her is an attack on a "woman of color" despite her not being of sub-Saharan African, South Asian, East Asian or Amerindian ancestry). If the Census Bureau ends up adding Arabs as a separate category someday, it wouldn't be one that excludes then from the "white" category, but as an additional ethnicity category that would allow people to check that box *in addition to the box for "white," "black" (think Congresswoman Omar) or another race*. It would be like that Census category labeled "Hispanic or Latino," which does not substitute or contradict the selection of racial categories by the person answering the Census. It also should be noted that the Census Bureau has decided *against* adding "Arab" as a special category, so "is considering" is not a correct characterization of that particular goal of some Arab-American groups.

And I believe that your proposal to have a committee to determine who "identifies as Arab" as opposed to who descends from Arabic speakers from Arab countries would be an exercise in POV and a terrible way to determine inclusion in an article listing Arab-American congressmen. In America, Lebanese Americans are considered Arab Americans both by Arab groups and the popular at large, and the particular words of affiliation used by an individual shouldn't matter when compiling a list of Arab-American congressmen.

Question: Is your goal to exclude Lebanese Americans, as well as Assyrian Americans, from the article? Because your hand-wringing about nomenclature could be solved by changing the title to "List of Arab-American, Lebanese-American and Assyrian-American Members of Congress" (and to add "Kurdish-American," etc. to the title when other Middle Eastern ethnicities elect members of Congress someday). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, you're full of PoV pushing. Saying almost all Arabs think they're white is PoV pushing, and ridiculous by the way. Have you looked at pictures of Saudis or Yemenis, or Upper (southern) Egyptians? Perhaps Lebanese Christians generally identify as white; that would make sense because, as Gergis has said, people from the northern Levant are genetically a lot closer to Mediterannean Europeans than they are to North Africans or Gulf Arabs. But Saudi Arabians, Yemenis, southern Egyptians, etc virtually never look or identify as white. There is massive racial diversity within Arab-speaking peoples. And Rashida Taliba (a Palestinian, i.e. someone of southern Levantine heritage) is seen as a minority as well; even her critics generally credit her identification in this regard.

Regardless, all of this is OR. You need sources saying all of these people on the page are Arabs. Right now you just have OR, and even if you're "right" that they should be considered 'white Arabs,' that's not enough when the definition of Arab is contested as concerns Lebanese Christians. Wikipedia itself, in its entry on Lebanese, notes that the Arab identification is controversial as applied to Lebanese, and rejected by many. Steeletrap (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Gergis Baki's proposal that we should identify Lebanese as Arabs only if they themselves identify this way is supported by the Wikipedia Manuel of Style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity. "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources. If it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." In other words, unless we have a consensus of reliable sources saying x is/was an Arab, we should not identify him or her as an Arab unless he/she publicly identifies this way.

Finally, the goal isn't to exclude Lebanese from being called Arab. It is excluding Lebanese who do not identify as Arab from having an Arab identity imposed on them. Any Lebanese who identifies as Arab should be included in the list. Our only difference is that you want to impose, based on OR, an Arab identity on these Lebanese Christians who almost certainly rejected it. Steeletrap (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, @Steeletrap, your problem is with the word "Arab" (and "Middle Eastern," of course). In that case, let's just call the article "List of Arab-American, Lebanese-American and Assyrian-American Members of Congress" and avoid the whole imbroglio.

Your proposal to obtain a statement from members of Congress as to whether they identify with the word "Arab" seems rather silly, particularly when it comes to the dead ones. And why do you assume that Lebanese-Americans don't want to be listed in an article about Arab-Americans? Why not include them but let those who wish to opt out to say that they should be removed? It is biased to assume, with no evidence whatsoever, that a particular Lebanese American rejects the label "Arab American" just because many Lebanese Christians wish to differentiate themselves from Arab Muslims. @GergisBaki twice removed from the article's introduction a factual statement about Senator James Abourezk, a child of Lebanese Christians, being the first Arab American to serve in the U.S. Senate, because "Lebanese don't consider themselves Arabs." Now, Senator Abourezk was one of two co-founders (among with James Zogby) of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (see https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-american-hustle-does_b_4541307?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIJWRuk7hGpIa09XQWkU0JS3x5bf7urSF0BC-dWuJloLj1RIvo_VRsjVNUwcsfvY2iFcGK8jDwdDIbf_t2nsOKNjbFa4m8UKfnXFza7lGyPUovnu3uyzI022X3_FAx-dW6FnT4zkWMj2eHujvw639zyXUsgxcVFEOGhRzQMuixaV), but I guess that he's a Lebanese Christian and thus not a real Arab. (Do you know how I learned that about Abourezk? I went to his Wikipedia article and clicked on one of the sources cited therein.)

Call me a "PoV pusher" if you wish, but I'm not the one trying to exclude Lebanese Americans from an article based on some subjective standard. If you don't like the term "Arab-American" as applied to Lebanese Americans, then let's add "Lebanese-Americans" to the title and settle this once and for all. And if we add "Assyrian-American" as well, and, when a Kurdish American, etc., is elected to Congress, add such other Middle-Eastern ethnicities to the title as are agreed by consensus, then we can get to the same place without inviting controversy. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, at times this discussion has either become silly or has verged on the absurd; appointing a group to determine which Lebanese Americans identify as "Arab", (and this has to be sourced) as if personal identities are totally exclusive of each other. Moreover reputable sources cannot always be found for distinct "identities". In today's modern world, people maintain overlapping identities; one could identify as "Arab" (politically-speaking) , "Arab-American" (politically-Speaking), Mediterranean, Aramean-Canaanite (ethnically-speaking), and Lebanese-American (nationally and politically-speaking). Don't forget the designation "Arab" can be interpreted in two ways, ethnically or politically. Before the 19th century the "Arab" designation was mostly ethnic in scope and referred to the peoples of the Arabian peninsula. In the early 1800s and onward the "Arab" designation became very political starting with the Arab renaissance movement, spearheaded by writers and intellectuals from the Arabic-speaking world and then by politicians, most prominently by the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser during the heady days of the Arab nationalist movement, which peaked in the late 1950s.

Moreover, the Pan Arab-American movement is a by-product of the immigration process, which entailed Syrians immigrating to the U.S in the 1880s and was further expanded when other immigrants from Arabic-speaking countries arrived to the U.S after the 1960s. This Pan Arab-American movement became much larger and more emotional in political scope for members of the community during 1960s America; this said movement was influenced by the Chicano-American movement, the Civil Rights movement and the 1967 Israeli war. One can delineate this movement has produced many tangible efforts, such as notable Arab-American political strategists who are actively trying to shape the political discourse on the many conflicts and issues of this region to the foundation of the Arab-American National museum in Dearborn, Michigan. I don't know if the concerned editors have been to the aforementioned museum as I have, but I can tell you that a lot of the prominent Americans who hail from the Arab World are included in the museum.

Anyways, there's too much I can say about this topic, if the designation "Arab-American" is problematic, we should change the title. I will think of one. I suggest we describe in concrete terms what we agree and don't agree about the employed words of the title, this will perhaps make a consensus easier to achieve. I will start with the following:

1) The Eurocentric and highly subjective term "Middle East" should be removed quickly. This French term has no value whatsoever, and it is open to different interpretations as to what constitutes the "Middle East". Some political scientists exaggerate by including Afghanistan and Pakistan in the "Middle East"; which I maintain is preposterous.

2) Assyrians and Somalis should not be included. Assyrians almost never employ the "Arab" designation when identifying themselves and have no desire whatsoever to be grouped with them. (There is plenty that can be said of that) Even though Somalia has Arabic designated as an official language, the vast majority of Somalis identify with the Somali language. The minority who do identify as Arabs are very conservative religious Muslims. Children of Somali parents in the West, overwhelmingly don't speak Arabic, they speak Somali. George Al-Shami (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like everyone other than Au agrees that the article is extremely problematic in its current form, but think it call be salvaged if it is renamed to "Arab American Congresspersons", and then we re-evaluate the inclusion of various persons (the problem with including all Leb<ref>anese Christians as Arabs, as I have mentioned, is that this is based on OR; since Lebanese=Arab is a contested definition, as the Wikipedia entry on Lebanese itself describes, their inclusion is based on OR; instead we should only include those Lebanese who identify as Arab). I actually would be inclined to agree with this in lieu of an AfD, though my vote is delete for now.

My only question is: Is it possible to rename articles? If so, can a more experienced WP user explain how do we do that? GergisBaki (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold issue is whether descendants from native inhabitants of Arab countries are a distinct enough group that a list of those of them who have served in Congress is a matter worthy of an encyclopedia article. If the consensus is that such an article should exist, the issues remaining are (i) which descendants of such native inhabitants of Arab countries should be so listed and (ii) what do we call the article?

Regarding the first question, it seems wrong to me to say that an Arabic-speaker from Syria or Iraq should be included but a Neo-Aramaic speaker from Syria or Iraq shouldn't. Assyrians/Chaldeans have lived in those countries for millennia and, when they emigrate to the United States, they face many of the same issues as do Arabic-speakers from such countries. Assyrians/Chaldeans are native inhabitants of Arab countries, and I don't think that they should be excluded from the article.

I also wholly oppose the notion that only such Lebanese as taken an affirmative act to "identify as Arab" (whatever that means) should be included in the article. The vibrant Arab community in Dearborn, MI was built by Lebanese and Syrians who thought of themselves as Lebanese or Syrian first and Arab as an afterthought, but without them the more recent pan-Arab immigrants would have been starting out from scratch. If a Sunni thinks of himself as a Sunni first and as a Muslin second, that does not make him any less Muslim; the same holds for persons from Arab countries whose main loyalty is to their particular country or tribe. (This reminds me of Lawrence of Arabia, when Anthony Quinn's character tells Lawrence that he doesn't know what an Arab is, but rattles off the names of a half-dozen tribes within Saudi Arabia, implying that their loyalty was only to the tribe.) In any event, it is easy to confirm that a person's ancestors emigrated from an Arab country, and much harder to tell whether he or she "identifies as Arab" irrespective of the subjective standard that one imposed. I would stick to objective criteria.

As for the second question, to avoid the term "Middle Easterner" (which, unbeknownst to me, has fallen into disfavor, and which leads to controversy due to changing definitions of the term), and in order to make sure that all Lebanese-Americans and Syrian-Americans are included without the need for a subjective litmus test, perhaps we should retitle the article "List of Lebanese-Americans, Syrian-Americans, Palestinian-Americans and Assyrian-Americans in Congress" and add a new demonym to the title whenever someone from a different ethnicity from the Arab World is added. (Somalia is not an Arab country, and IMHO Congresswoman Omar shouldn't be in the article, but there was consensus that she should be included and thus she was; by changing the name there would be no doubt that she should be excluded.)

What do other editors think? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lebanese/Syrian/Palestinian Americans in the United States Congress is not bad and if AuH2ORepublican wants to add Assyrians to the title then I would support that too; however the problem with that title is that it would have to be periodically updated, let's say if a Jordanian or Egyptian American gets elected to the Congress.

Another suggestion, List of descendants from Arabic-speaking Americans in the United States Congress, the wording is a bit clumsy, but something to that effect would include all the people the concerned editors would want to include. If any of you have a better way to articulate the idea I described then I would support that too. The good thing about this title is that it includes the adjective Arabic and does not impose an identity on anyone, in that it merely states that they descended from Arabic-speaking Americans; which is indeed factual as even the Assyrian immigrants who immigrated to the US spoke Arabic when they arrived. Moreover it mirrors the consensus that was reached when hyphenated Americans categories were removed from biographical articles and replaced with a descent category. For example, unless specifically mentioned by a person of Arabic-speaking descent, we would not know if they identify as Arab Americans, but if we add from Arabic-speaking descent, then that simply makes it factual and neutral and removes the controversial identity part.

I am pinging @Al Ameer son: to join the discussion, he has contributed to similar discussions in the past and has written good articles about the peoples of the Arabic-speaking world. George Al-Shami (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@George Al-Shami, you wrote "[t]he problem with that title is that it would have to be periodically updated if a Jordanian or Egyptian American gets elected to the Congress." You are absolutely correct, but if that's what it takes to make everyone happy, I think that it's worth going through that extra trouble when someone whose ancestors came from another Arab country is elected to Congress. I would not recommend calling the article "List of descendants from Arabic-speaking Americans in the United States Congress" because not only would it exclude Assyrians/Chaldeans, but it also could be deemed to include someone with a British father who had learned Arabic while in foreign service or something. Moreover, you'd always have some wise-ass say "Congressman X was born in Michigan to Arabic-speaking parents from Syria, but his parents never became U.S. citizens, so the Congressman isn't a descendant of an Arabic-speaking *American*. More seriously, it could be used to exclude someone whose Lebanese or Palestinian parents emigrated to South America or Central America but never to the U.S.--for example, had Rashida Tlaib been born in Nicaragua, where her Palestinian parents first emigrated, and moved to the U.S. on her own as a teenager, then she would not descend from Arabic-speaking Americans yet clearly would be a Palestinian-American once she was naturalized. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's proceed one issue at a time. If you guys rename the page to "Arab American Congresspersons" (or something to this effect) I will close the AfD. Then we can debate whether we should use OR (our opinions about who is Arab, which is a controversial issue) or reliable sources to figure out whom to list as an Arab American. GergisBaki (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Arab American, but this is not my area of focus on wikipedia. From the outset the solution seems simple: rename this article for Arab Americans exclusively. The U.S. Census groups Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians as subcategories of "Arab" so it wouldn't be "original research" to say that Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian Americans are Arab Americans. The Census is certainly an imperfect source as it includes Berbers and Kurds under "Arab", which is false but that's mostly irrelevant to this article until we have a Moroccan or non-Assyrian/Chaldean Iraqi American congressperson. Lebanese Americans are a pillar of the country's Arab community, but if there are individual cases where Arab identity has been rejected then those individuals should be removed. I'd say it's pretty similar to Hispanics, who are very diverse yet share the same language and geographic region of origin and have some basic cultural similarities and are officially recognized as a common heritage group. The Census does not count "Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs" under "Arab", they have their own category, while Somalis are grouped under "Sub-Saharan Africans". Both these groups would be excluded at least on these grounds (in addition to other reasons), but we would be avoiding original research. Assyrians in America and the Arab world are pretty unanimous in rejecting Arab identity for linguistic and cultural reasons not just political ones and the argument that they've shared similar experiences and origins as the Syrians and Lebanese is understandable yet not convincing enough and indeed relies on O.R. unless reliable sources indicate otherwise. The alternative "List of Lebanese/Syrian/Palestinian Americans" is not bad, but it seems odd for a title and then more importantly the question becomes on what basis are we grouping those three particular heritage groups together? What do they have in common? And if we add Yemenis and Egyptians should that time come, well then what do those five groups have in common? And the answer is a common mother tongue (Arabic) and geographic region (Arab world) of origin. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer, I have absolutely no problem using the term "Arab Americans" to refer to what the Census Bureau considers Arab Americans (which certainly includes Lebanese). The only reason that I suggested the more cumbersome route of listing each individual Arab sub-group in the title is because several editors are advocating for the deletion of the article if it refers to Lebanese Americans as "Arab Americans" absent their specific and public self-identification as "Arab Americans." So if we can reach a consensus that Lebanese-American congressmen would be included under the term "Arab-American congressmen," then separately listing "Lebanese-American," "Palestinian-American," etc. in the title would be unnecessary.

As for Assyrian Americans, I am well aware that they are not Arab Americans under any plausible definition of the term. That being said, their ancestors are native residents of Arab countries, and the immigrant experience of, say, a Syrian Christian is not markedly different if he's an Assyrian or if he's an Arab. For these reasons, I think that they should be included in the article. If the consensus is that they should be removed, then so be it, but if they are to be kept in the article then I propose that "Assyrian-American" be added to the title, given that the term "Arab American" does not encompass Assyrian Americans while "Middle Eastern American" is overbroad and problematic.

Somali Americans, on the other hand, are neither Arabs nor descendants of native peoples of Arab countries (most Somalis have some Arab admixture in their ancestry, but it's from a millennium ago), have a very different immigrant experience from Arabs and Assyrians/Chaldeans, and should not be included in the article (although they are included in the articles on African-American members of Congress). One thing that is clear from this discussion is that there is a consensus that Congresswoman Omar should not be included in this article. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're generally right about the similar immigrant experience and other factors but we need a reliable source or two backing that up. I think entering in Assyrians opens up a pandora's box, the criteria for inclusion becoming increasingly subjective. The debate about Lebanese (Christians?) being included under the Arab American umbrella might be better held on the talk pages of Lebanese Americans or Arab Americans and then reflected here. In the meantime, I don't see a problem with adding a qualifier to this article that not all Lebanese Americans (and even Syrians, Palestinians and others) identify as Arab for whatever reasons assuming that we have reliable sources to back it up. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my opposition to including Lebanese Christians as Arab is rooted primarily in my concern about OR. As Wikipedia's own page on Lebanese says, the inclusion of Lebanese in the "Arab" category. It is not up to us to determine whether they are or are not Arabs. Instead, we should go off of RS/self-identification of people, listing only those as Arabs who publicly identify as such or are described as such in RS. GergisBaki (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GergisBaki, with all due respect, if only such Lebanese as "self-identify as Arab" to your satisfaction are included in the article, the correct name for the article should be "List of Pan-Arabists in the U.S. Congress," and such article would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lebanon is an Arab country and the U.S. Census Bureau classifies Lebanese as an Arab ethnicity, so one would be deviating from NPOV, and manufacturing a controversy where none exists, were one to exclude Lebanese-Americans from the article based on their individual points of view regarding Arab identity. Your point regarding how many Lebanese Christians nowadays do not describe themselves as "Arabs" is well taken, but the way to deal with that reality is to add a sentence to the introductory paragraph explaining that those listed in the article are descendants from immigrants from Arab countries (or immigrants from such countries themselves) and that inclusion on the list should not be understood to constitute an assertion regarding such individuals' self-identification as Arabs. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's fairly easy to find sources indicating how people identify. Affinity groups like AAS list people with their permission. If they are listed on such lists we can infer they identify as Arab. If they don't (like CHarlie CHrist, who is 1/8 Lebanese but you list as Arab on the page) inclusion of them is OR.

Do you have a source for your claim that the Census Bureau calls Lebanese Arabs? I was under the impression that the only controversy regarding the Census Bureau definition of Middle Eastern/North African was that they are all labeled as white (something that the Obama Admin planned to change, but the Trump Admin overruled). Is there a definition of Arab in the Census Bureau more specific than white? GergisBaki (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly dude I think you just need to read up a bit more on the diaspora, which is extremely diverse in terms of identity, skin color, genetics, etc. You claimed early that people descended from Arabic-speaking countries are all white which is just ludicrous. Do you actually think this is a white man? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halim_El-Dabh (He's a Copt of southern Egyptian descent and his look is typical of Upper Egyptians.) http://www.halimeldabh.com/ GergisBaki (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is not whether Lebanese and Upper Egyptians genetically belong to the same genetic race. They don't. Even within those nationalities there is considerable diversity. George al-Shami's summary about the modern evolution of Arab identity is pretty spot on and he is also right in that there's a lot more to say about it. Yet, there is an understanding that an Arab is someone whose mother tongue is Arabic and hails from that massive, contiguous region of native Arabic speakers. That's one of the main reasons why Berbers, Kurds, Armenians and Assyrians who live in that same geographic space are not counted as Arabs (they have their own mother tongue) without controversy. That doesn't make a native Arabic speaker a member of the classical Arabian race or declare that an Algerian and an Omani have the same origins (again, they probably don't). The Arab world is an extremely diverse place. Hence, the comparisons raised between Arab Americans and Hispanic Americans (Americans of Mexican, Dominican and Argentinian descent might look and be considerably different from each other but are still Hispanic/Latino Americans). The question is whether Lebanese Americans fall under the larger umbrella category of Arab Americans and the answer generally is yes. In their reported ancestry compilation, the U.S. Census lists Lebanese Americans under the larger category of Arab Americans.[9]. I'm sure they don't further inquire from a person identifying as Lebanese, Syrian or Palestinian American if they also explicitly identify as Arab or not. For that reason (and others which I noted above), it's not a *perfect* source, but it's also not original research to name Lebanese American congresspeople in a list of Arab American congresspeople. In my opinion, the best solution out of a series of imperfect proposals is to name this list for Arab Americans (not Assyrians or Somalis) and add reliably sourced qualifiers that certain sub-groups within Arab Americans, namely Lebanese but possibly others as well, may not universally identify as Arab or that they solely identify as "Lebanese", "Palestinian", etc. Charlie Crist could be discussed afterward and if there are cases where we have sources holding that certain individuals on this list reject Arab identity, then they could be removed altogether without controversy. --Al Ameer (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I composed this response prior to seeing Al Ameer's comment, so my apologies if there's an overlap between what the two of us wrote:

GergisBaki, you are engaged in POV by trying to divide people as "real Arabs" and "non-Pan-Arab-identifying (according to your personal criteria)" instead of using the definition of "Arab American" generally used in the United States (the article, after all, is about U.S. congressmen) and officially promulgated by the U.S. Census Bureau. As Al Ameer wrote in this very page, "The U.S. Census groups Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians as subcategories of "Arab" so it wouldn't be "original research" to say that Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian Americans are Arab Americans." This is evident from the census forms themselves: The census invites people to report Arab ethnicity, and to sublist more specific Arab ethnicities, and includes "Lebanese" in the examples of more specific Arab ethnicities. Moreover, the Census Bureau has long classified persons who list "Lebanese" (or Syrian, Palestinian, etc.) as "Arab" in its population reports. See, e.g., https://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-21.pdf. In other words, the U.S. Census Bureau classifies someone who identifies as Lebanese as an "Arab," without an additional litmus test or shibboleth. So by excluding those who claim Lebanese ancestry from the definition of "Arab" unless they jump through the hoops that you have concocted, it is you who is engaging in Original Research and/or Synthesis.

Besides, even if you got a consensus and managed to turn the article into a list of U.S. congressmen who publicly have identified as Pan-Arab (which I insist would not be an appropriate article due to its insurmountable POV components, not to mention that if would fail notability), it will be exceedingly difficult for you to determine whether the Arab-American congressmen in the list "self-identify as Arab" even if you came up with an objective definition of what "self-identifying as an Arab" means (although from the sound of it you mean @identifying as a Pan-Arabist"). People don't necessarily sign up with Arab-American groups, particularly those with a political agenda; heck, you mentioned the "AAS" as if it were some sort of invaluable resource, and I've never even heard of it. And how would you deal with Lebanese-American congressmen who died 20-30 years ago? You already stuck your foot in your mouth when you edited the main article to remove a reference to James Abourezk as the first Arab-American U.S. Senator because he's Lebanese and there was no evidence that he "self-identified" as Arab American, yet Abourezk founded the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in 1980. If you couldn't bother to take a minute to read Abourezk's Wikipedia article, how are you going to determine that all of those other congressmen truly "self-identify as Arab"? And if you do spend hours poring through public statements and private correspondence of every Lebanese-American (and Syrian-American and Palestinian-American, I assume, or are they exempt from your suspicions?) ever to have served in Congress, how in the world would that not constitute Original Research?

Finally, you appear to be obsessed with the question of race, which is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Arabs, as a group, are classified as white by the U.S. Census Bureau, but if the Census Bureau turned around and classified Arabs as "Asian or Pacific Islander" it would not make any difference in who is an Arab. (BTW, U.S. immigration laws originally classified Arabs as Asians, and thus subject to immigration restrictions, until Lebanese and Syrians--the founders of the Arab-American community--convinced the government to classify Arabs as white.) If you wish to argue that not every Arab is white, I'm not going to disagree with you, particularly given that Southern Egyptians speak Arabic and consider the selves (and are considered by others to be) Arabs while having substantial sub-Saharan African admixture for historical reasons. But, again, that is neither here nor there. What is ridiculous for you to claim is that my blue-eyed, white-skinned Palestinian Muslim friend is not white because he's undisputedly an Arab and thus can't be white, and then to apply that same faulty logic to coaim that indisputedly white Lebanese cannot be Arabs because Arabs are not white. You can't redefine the word "Arab" to mean "dark-skinned Arab" and then assert that Lebanese who (for obvious reasons) don't classify themselves as "dark-skinned Arabs" thus are not "Arabs." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting too in the woods, and you are spending a lot of energy responding to arguments I haven't made. My argument is simple. The definition of Lebanese as Arabs is (according to RS) controversial. Because it is not an undisputed fact that Lebanese=Arabs, we cannot engage in OR to decide that they are. Therefore, we should only count those Lebanese (or Copts or Somalis or members of other groups that often don't identify as Arabs) as Arab who identify as such. GergisBaki (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An easy fix to this problem would simply be to change the page to "list of Lebanese-American Congresspersons," since almost everyone on the page is Lebanese. THen there is no OR issue. GergisBaki (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, I, speaking only for myself, would have no problem with changing the title of the article to "List of Lebanese-Americans, Syrian-Americans, Palestinian-Americans and Assyrian-Americans in Congress" and then adding a new demonym to the title whenever someone from a different specific ethnicity from the Arab World is added. If a consensus can be achieved for such change, it would have my vote. And if the consensus is that Assyrians from Syria are so different from Arabs from Syria that they should not be listed in the same article, then I reluctantly would support excluding Congressmen Benjamin and Eshoo and changing the name of the article to "List of Lebanese-Americans, Syrian-Americans and Palestinian-Americans in Congress" (and then adding a new demonym to the title whenever someone from a different Arab ethnicity is added). In either case, I agree that Somali-Americans should not be listed, which means Congresswoman Omar should be excluded.

Regarding whether someone who is 1/8th Lebanese should be listed in the article, that is a good question, and one that should be discussed in the Talk page after a decision is made regarding whether the article stays or goes and what it's name should be. But please note that Charlie Crist is *not* 1/8th Lebanese, he is 1/4th Lebanese. In an interview with Jewish Insider published on April 10, 2017, Charlie Crist asserted "My father’s mother Mary Khoury immigrated from Lebanon from a village north of Beirut around 1912." https://crist.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=512 So Crist is 1/4th Lebanese, which should be deemed sufficient for an article listing Lebanese-American members of Congress--and, in fact, almost all newspaper articles about current Lebanese Americans in Congress list Crist. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is as good a place as any to mention this. I was looking at the Arab American Institute's "Arab American Roster" (see https://www.aaiusa.org/arab-american-roster) earlier today to verify whether the Arab American Institute actually includes Ilhan Omar on its list (it does, despite Somalis not being Arabs under any definition), and whether it lists the Lebanese Americans currently serving in Congress (it does, including 1/4 Lebanese Charlie Crist, Garrett Graves and Darin LaHood), when I noticed that the AAI also lists Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL), who immigrated to the U.S. from Ecuador at age 14 (Mucarsel is her maiden name, and Powell her married name), as an Arab-American elected official. I did some Googling and found that (i) the Mucarsel family in Ecuador is of Lebanese ancestry and (ii) Debbie Mucarsel-Powell was described as being of "Ecuadoran and Lebanese descent" in NBC News's article on the 2018 elections: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-minority-voters-helped-drive-democrats-gains-u-s-house-n933706. I don't think that the fact that her Lebanese ancestors immigrated to Ecuador instead of to America should be held against her, anymore than John H. Sununu's Lebanese ancestors having immigrated to El Salvador (where his mother was born and raised) should be held against him. (John H. Sununu's father was of Palestinian ancestry, so his son, Senator John E. Sununu, would be listed in the article anyhow, but the principle still holds.) When a consensus is reached regarding the existence and name of the article, I think that Debbie Mucarsel-Powell should be added as well. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really edit on Wikipedia im just a regular guy but this shouldn't be an Arab purity text, this is about people with links to the Arabworld, that includes Lebs, Somalis, and any other Arab League member state, there is also another label you can go by Semitic/Hamitic or Afro-Asiatic like the language family which again includes all the people discussed here plus Jews. 2600:1700:4460:41A0:FF:5866:3DCA:7657 (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)randomguy[reply]

• Comment This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion at this time on the merits of the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 16:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep as this is a completely ill-formed and improper nomination which seems like more of a talkpage discussion in AfD space; nobody is going to read through this novel of text that should have a deletion rationale of at most, one succinct paragraph, and which was never placed on any kind of daily log, so it needs to be WP:TNT'ed (I hold no opinion on the actual article here, just of how awful this nom structure is). GergisBaki, please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion and everyone else, let's also read through the AfD guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 01:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This classification goes against both census racial classes and how many of these people have self identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The deletion nom is rambling and doesn't follow any standard deletion guideline. While I could almost appreciate the novel rationale, it has no basis in reality. Clearly we can determine who is and isn't Arab or Middle Eastern, and any gray areas can be solved by talk page discussion or RfC. Plenty of sources describe these congressfolks as Arab/Middle Eastern, or show their Arab/Middle Eastern origins/heritage. Also see GoldwaterRepublican's very well reasoned discussion comment. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:12, 30 August 2019 (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. Total keep consensus based on sourcing. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team Vitality[edit]

Team Vitality (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:NORG. No reliable secondary sources completely independent of the subject that discuss it in detail John from Idegon (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — As someone who has advocated for the deletion of a lot of non-notable esports teams, I ask you...are you sure about this one? I see multiple sources from ESPN with the subject as part of the headline. That’s pretty high level sourcing, and being in the headline would suggest that it’s not a passing mention either... Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Paraphrasing a bit from what I wrote on Team Vitality's talk page: Team Vitality's franchise is well known in the professional esports scene and its reach within Europe specifically is massive, but this was not clear originally due to the lack of written content and secondary/teritiary sources. I have attempted to remedy this and firmly believe I have done so to an acceptable degree in regards to Wikipedia policy. One of the most notable details about Team Vitality is it is one of ten permanent franchise partners of the League of Legends European Championship, which is the largest and highest level professional league [for League of Legends] in Europe. Deleting this page would be the equivalent of deleting the FC Barcelona of the European League of Legends scene. In regards to "No reliable secondary sources completely independent of the subject", if this is referring to [sources'] content [being focused solely on the team], it is rare that any team would be merely mentioned and not talked about in a news article; if this is referring to publisher, ESPN, theScore esports, and Dot Esports to name a few are all accepted as reliable sources per discussion (WP:VG/S) by the WikiProject Video games community. With all this in mind, I would be greatly disappointed if this deletion went forward. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — We need esports-specific notability standards, and being a permanent LEC franchise (see above) should clear the bar for sure. Raymie (t • c) 08:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel that notability is established. I'm definitely not suited to write them, but Raymie is probably correct that esports has reached the point that it warrants its own notability guidelines, and being a permanent LEC franchise probably would be sufficient within them. For the moment I'd back that as an acceptable IAR argument (on top of me feeling notability is met), with some encouragement for some likeminded souls (that is, Wikipedians who actually know something about esports) to write them later. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2019 (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 WAY 79. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sesquicentenary Celebrations Series[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BK. The only sources for which the book series is the subject are all sale sites. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 15:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment page deleted by creator, and made redirect page. Fairly pointless afd, it could have been much easier by discussion first. Afd first is never a very good idea. Other editors might have other solutions. JarrahTree 23:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please read this! Page content has in effect been merged into parent article - the nominator has made a valid point about this item, however, to keep this afd open, when the creator of the article agrees with its removal, an WP:AGF removal of the Afd, and a blank and Prod is within process, to do so. JarrahTree 07:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Willbb234, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve. "Sesquicentenary Celebrations Series" is a reasonable term to use as a redirect to WAY 79, and I have not seen you deny this. It appears that the only thing you're insisting on is that JarrahTree wasn't allowed (?) to blank the page and make the redirect--well, the easiest and most non-confrontational way to get what you both want is to simply withdraw the nomination and accept a redirect. Simple. All you have to say is "OK" and we can close this.

  JarrahTree, if "hohum" means "this content merged from Sesquicentenary Celebrations Series, which is what you say here and what I think you are saying on the nominator's talk page, then please make that clear. (There is no benefit to being cryptic here or elsewhere.) Please see WP:MERGETEXT and WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Now, Willbb234, can we close this as merge and redirect and move on? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Ok. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 17:05, 24 August 2019 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iyiola Solanke[edit]

Iyiola Solanke (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)

Low-citation record and article sourced by lots of web stuff. Notability not obvious, so thought community should take a look. Agricola44 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Agricola44 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having reviewed some "web stuff", the subject's notability seems obvious. For example, the UCL appointed her as the independent chair of an inquiry and, in announcing this, gives details of her background which indicates that she is a respectable academic and author. Not seeing the problem. Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, I did see that, but it's a press-release from her own institution on their own website. We don't count such instances toward notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that item was published by UCL while the subject is a professor at another institution and was specifically appointed as independent. This matter has been the subject of press coverage and the role seems both substantial and significant. This source is fine and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldn't being Chair in European Union law satisfy the notability guidelines? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Chair in EU Law and Social Justice" at Leeds looks on the face of it to be a pass of WP:PROF#C5. And there are enough reviews of her books to give her at least a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I made this page) - As per Eppstein, she passes WP:PROF#C5 and WP:PROF#C4 for her work supporting black women professors. Jesswade88 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unsure why this was nominated in the first place. “Notability not obvious, so thought community should take a look” is not solid grounds to nominate for deletion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• taking a look at Agricola44’s recent contributions might help you work out why; almost all trying to delete biographies of women.Jesswade88 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh, and there it is! The accusation of sexism rears its ugly, but predictable (in ours times) head. How many of those bios were actually deleted? Almost all of them. Why? Because they were women? Hardly. It was because those individuals were not actually notable. Why were the articles created in the first place, then? To WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, of course. Much of WP editing is now dedicated to this social cause, which it confuses with encyclopedia-building. I remember some years ago when arguments like yours: "WP:PROF#C4 for her work supporting black women professors" were considered empty pleading. The fact nobody challenges this indicates how far our notability standards have fallen in the service of social justice. It is an indisputable fact that this person's scholarship is far below our typical minimum, that her title does not render her notable per se (as David's tenuous wording admits), and that announcements by institutions of pending hires do not count as RS toward notability (as Andrew continues to mistakenly believe). These are valid reasons for the community to pause to consider the qualification of any article (to "take a look" is what I said) and, of course, AfD is the main official mechanism by which to do this. So, thanks. Thanks a lot for the accusation. I'm saddened that my constructive efforts to build a serious encyclopedia (which are somewhat different from your constructive efforts, but no less useful or legitimate) are met with bullying accusations of bigotry. Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide some evidence to support your 'indisputable fact'? Richard Nevell (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't accuse you of anything, I just checked out your recent contributions. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Wikipedia:The duck test that sure looks like sexual bias to me... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Chair. Seems to be fairly widely mentioned in media.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability seems to have been established pretty clearly by the subject being Chair in European Union law at the University of Leeds. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR and, by the looks of it, WP:PROF#C5. Working to support black women (or any marginalized group) in academia would indeed be grounds for passing WP:PROF#C4, which asks for a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Authoring textbooks is the example for how to pass C4, but of course it isn't the only way. I'm not sure we have quite enough documentation to make that case in this specific instance, but it's superfluous either way. And she did write a textbook that turns up in a number of syllabuses (after [10][11][12][13], I stopped looking), which doesn't hurt. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Afterthought Law, like pure mathematics, is an area of scholarship where citation counts have proven uninformative. And in the humanities generally, we look to book reviews in scholarly journals, which Solanke has received. She also appears to be a go-to source of expert opinion [14][15], which is another thing we look for (WP:PROF#C7). XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Chair, and books receiving serious reviews, and clearly a notable person of the calibre invited to chair independent enquiries etc. PamD 18:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR as explained by several others above. Sourcing for the book reviews was already present before this AfD...I disagree with the nominator's statement that her notability wasn't obvious. @Agricola44: I recommend you close this discussion; it's clear there isn't consensus to delete this article. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The book reviews are enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. Haukur (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2019 (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 Girl next door. Clear consensus not to keep, with redirect being a reasonable WP:ATD. Content remains in the history if there's anything sourced to reliable sources to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boy next door (stock character)[edit]

Boy next door (stock character) (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 faces some edit warring and recreation after my attempt to make it a redirect, so I would like to put it to rest. The topic of a "boy next door" is not independently notable except as a rarer derivative of "girl next door" and fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how this is less notable than Girl next door. A merge might be possible but only if a suitable title can decided on to encompass both archetypes. Sources do exist for "boy next door" e.g. Typical Men- The Representation of Masculinity in Popular British Cinema By Andrew Spicer which contains extensive coverage (e.g. the Middle-Class Boy-Next Door pages 88-94) .----Pontificalibus 14:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not rise above the level of a slang dictionary definition. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did try to rescue the article, but I failed to find reliable sources which discuss the subject in depth, or give a definition, or at the very least say that it is a stereotype, so that it cannot even be merged into GND. Staszek Lem 21:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Girl next door as it is a variation on that stock character. This source supports this with a passing mention about the boy/girl next door character type. I do not believe there is not enough coverage for a separate article, but I could see this being a viable search term and a brief mention of the "boy next door" being a variation on the "girl next door" could be added to the target article to accommodate this. With that said, I could also understand a deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Girl next door, with a line of explanation of how this came to be used towards the opposite sex. bd2412 T 04:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A narchetype essential to a complete encyclopedia. With a "see also" to girl next door.-- Deepfriedokra 05:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's no sources to even confirm it's a term that should actually be noted. Redirect if there are any sources confirming its usage. TTN (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Girl next door as an ((R from gender)). There are other similar cases: Widower redirects to Widow, Magical boy to Magical girl, and It boy to It girl. Cheers, gnu57 16:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the explanation. That makes a lot of sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Girl next door - the source given in the article TV Tropes, says that Boy Next Door is a Distaff Counterpart or Spear Counterpart, "creating an equivalent that's mostly the same except for being the opposite sex" - as the article has no other sources to establish notability, it makes sense to combine Boy next door with the Girl next door as they are essentially the same concept - Epinoia (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2019 (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)} 18:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Council[edit]

Sunni Council (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 article originally created for an Islamic organisation based United Kingdom. Kutyava (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete IMO the name of Council is not accurate, so that it leads it fail in Notability. Any way in current situation it does not stand on RSes.Hispring (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No references. I doubt that this is the proper name of the organisation. Rathfelder (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:26, 30 August 2019 (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) 15:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Future Market Insights[edit]

Future Market Insights (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 has been CSDd three times over the years, once for copyvio and twice for A7. I think a case could be made again for A7, but I'm going to bring it to AFD for a decision with the suggestion that if this is deleted, it is also now salted.

Bottom line, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. When I came to the article, it was packed with citations, but all except one of them were articles about other topics (deodorant, pharmaceuticals, etc.) where FMI had contributed research that prompted the article. That in no way establishes the notability of the company itself. What remains is one solitary source that is actually about FMI, and I am extremely dubious about the reliability of it. My own WP:BEFORE finds no articles covering the company in depth - just a load of press releases either about the company or about their research. Hug^syrup 12:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt as paid-for spam created by a now-blocked spam only account. MER-C 10:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and salt: nominator, and MER-C have said everything. Nothing new to add. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YouthQuake Live[edit]

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

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

No significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as someone who would have possibly A7'd it as it is currently written I could find this from a GSearch; all of the Jacksonville.com sources are dead links but appear to establish notability when viewed through the Internet Archive. ([16], [17], and [18]) Those all three count as one source since they're from the same website, but it, BoldCityVoice, and News4Jax seem to be independent from both YouthQuake and one another. It's not much, but barely notable is still notable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a poor article, but if it really involves people from 40 churches in multiple denominations, it is probably notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORGSIG, "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable...merely because it exists", "No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is" - fails WP:ORGCRIT as it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources" - interviews are not reliable sources - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The current version has zero references. The sources located by John M Wolfson don't impress me as being WP:SIGCOV. Had I found the article in this state from six years ago, I would have WP:G11'd it. Since that time, it got cleaned of the promotional stuff, but there's really nothing left. No objection to somebody starting from scratch in draft space, assuming they can find solid references. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2019 (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. Haukur (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Voicer[edit]

Operation Voicer (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)

Procedural nomination pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 12, as while the review concluded that this article is not necessarily covered by the BLPDELETE and discussion that got its previous version deleted, some people wanted a full discussion or had concerns about the quality of the sourcing. Personally I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly a notable investigation based on the sustained coverage of it in multiple reliable sources so it's an easy WP:GNG pass. No problems in WP:NOT. BLP issues at this date do not seem to be a problem as everyone named as commiting a crime in the article is now a convicted criminal. PS - I honestly wish I had never read this article and warn anyone with PTSD issues likely to be triggered by accounts of child abuse not to read it, however, this is not a reason for deletion. FOARP (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If there are specific issues with the quality of sourcing, those can be discussed on the article talk page. It is perfectly clear that the topic is notable and has achieved substantial, sustained, wide coverage. I agree with everything FOARP says above. Everything. Hug^syrup 12:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is clearly a notable police operation and a notable criminal case. It was sufficiently covered in press. The sources are mostly newspapers and BBC, which is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs some work (particularly, the first paragraph past the lead is written more like a news story intro than an encyclopedia article), but significant media coverage, especially from the BBC, looks like it meets WP:NCRIME. creffett (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - these crimes were a major scandal/outrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strandvue (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 August 2019 (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. Fenix down (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dawkins[edit]

Joseph Dawkins (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Article claims he played in USL Pro, although it's clearly wrong as Ottawa didn't play in USL Pro in 2013. They played in non-fully-pro PDL [19] BlameRuiner (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:39, 26 August 2019 (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. Tone 10:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky (Swedish company)[edit]

Sticky (Swedish company) (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)

Creator is a name match for the company's marketing person. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH, being press releases / churnalism. This is a tiny private company, with 20 employees. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Typical brochure article for a startup. Majority of references are supposed awards. Rest are press releases and run of the mill business news. Coverage is so bad that they had to identify it as a Swedish company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 13:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2019 (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. Tone 10:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1legcall[edit]

1legcall (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)

Flagged for notability for over 5 years and never fixed. Sources are press releases, and the first couple of pages of Google results show no substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't think this passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Creator name is a match for a marketing person at the subject ocmpany. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no notability demonstrated, I agree it looks like a marketing stub. Jooojay (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - coverage is press releases and advertising on the web. I agree that it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No indication of notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2019 (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. Tone 08:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Levitt[edit]

Robin Levitt (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)

Bio of an individual who has local notability as a political activist but lacks any reliable independent sources to demonstrate that they meet our notability threshold. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is hardly asserted, much less shown with sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing he has done has been even remotely close to making one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but the article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of actually passing any subject-specific notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2019 (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 21:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ERC-1155[edit]

ERC-1155 (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)

Apparently-promotional article for obscure cryptocurrency thing that's barely covered in crypto blogs, let alone mainstream sources. Zero evidence of notability. Refbombed - literally every single source is either a crypto blog (the NASDAQ is a crypto blog reprint), or irrelevant to the topic and doesn't even mention ERC-1155 - and this is after a source and OR cleanout. Declined PROD, which creator tried to fix by adding more bad and/or irrelevant sources. David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I am generally not in favor of removing informational articles, but unfortunately in this case, the article has veered headlong into the promotional category for something that is ostensibly about a standard. As David mentioned above, the sources are really bad. I still think there's a place for an ERC-1155 article on Wikipedia, but it isn't now (without enough reliable sources) and this article is not a good starting point. --Molochmeditates (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If this is indeed the agreed-upon opinion of more senior Wikipedia editors, then deletion is fair enough. It probably is too early for an article to be able to demonstrate the required mainstream notability when the subject matter has yet to break into the social mainstream, so any attempt at writing about it now will likely run into the same issues that this attempt did.

I would however like to contend that sources added after the initial proposal for deletion were not irrelevant: they clearly involved a mainstream game publication (Polygon) speaking about a game that has adopted the standard, and made the integration of blockchain a focus of the game's notability. Other articles confirmed that it was the ERC1155 standard being adopted by said game. Just as most people not knowing how the complex machinations of an Internal Combustion Engine work does not mean that Internal Combustion Engines are irrelevant to account for when speaking about automobiles, so I believe that individual token standards are indeed relevant to speaking about how blockchain works (when people choose to delve into that level of detail).

It's just unfortunate that the relative technological complexity of blockchain and low levels of mainstream adoption mean that any coverage in acceptable mainstream sources have been primarily limited to very broad topline discussion of Bitcoin (which by virtue of being the first cryptocurrency also has less recent technological development than many). Perhaps in future as blockchain (and blockchain gaming in particular) gains more mainstream awareness, blockchain-centric sources will become more acceptable, or more of the currently-acceptable publications will have had time to cover them. For now though, the requirements make writing about any finer or emerging details quite troublesome. --FrendlyBaratheon (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: FrendlyBaratheon (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

FrendlyBaratheon, firstly thanks for taking the time to try to improve the article. Wikipedia has in the past struggled to contain promotional content from crypto/blockchain space encroaching on the encyclopedic content. There are General Sanctions against crypto that you might want to take a look at. Articles need to clear a higher bar here. In general, please also note that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator and as such you should expect a lag between the "cutting edge" and seeing that as an article on Wikipedia, as a good encyclopedia should. You can really help out Wikipedia's coverage of the crypto space by finding reliable sources for existing articles. That's a good way to get your feet wet. I look forward to your continued participation in improving Wikipedia's blockchain and crypto coverage. --Molochmeditates (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2019 (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 Indochinese Communist Party. If better sourcing emerges which meets WP:N, it can always be spun back out after gaining consensus on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

League for National Salvation of Vietnamese Residents of Kampuchea[edit]

League for National Salvation of Vietnamese Residents of Kampuchea (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)

Did my best to locate substantial sources about this group but there is literally nothing available beyond the two sentences already in this article. I tried every possible keyword variation, including snippets like "national salvation"+Kampuchea and similar, but got nothing beyond the source already in the article. We can't maintain an article on the basis of two sentences in a single book.

I'm not sure there's a suitable merge target, but I'd be happy to withdraw and merge somewhere as an alternative to deletion if someone can suggest something. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I added two sources. Also worth searching for "League for National Salvation of the Vietnamese Residents in Cambodia" etc. I'm not convinced a seperate article is warranted. Perhaps a merge to somewhere like People's Republic of Kampuchea or Cambodian–Vietnamese_War.----Pontificalibus 07:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 08:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 14:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep that played an important role in building support for the armed insurgency in South Vietnam is notable enough to warrant a separate article. Now expanded, with more sources. --Soman (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

None of the sources you added constitute in-depth substantial coverage. The most coverage it gets is two sentences and a quote in the Ben Kiernan sources. I'd be on board for a merge maybe to Indochina Communist Party, or Cambodian–Vietnamese_War as suggested by Pontificalibus above, but there's not enough substantial coverage for a standalone article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't how notability works. From WP:NOTABILITY "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." In this case, relating to an organization that existed 1947-1950, we are able to find a number of sources in English in a few minutes google search, which indicates that the organization played an important role in early stages of regionalization of the Vietnamese resistance (which later led the US to drop more bombs on Cambodia than it had done in Europe in WWII), should point to the existance of more contemporary sources with greater coverage. From the English-language coverage online, we can deduce a greater body of coverage in contemporary sources.

As for merging: Any article can be merged somewhere. But that is pointless. The question is, would merger facilitate for the reader to learn about a subject in question? None of the proponents of deletion/merger here has been able to come with a convincing argument why this article should be merged somewhere else (for example, Cambodian-Vietnamese War is an event that occured 3 decades later...). The article subject relates the ICP, the Viet Minh, to the history of Cambodia, the Viet Kieu in Cambodia, etc.., but merging it into one of those only makes it less accessible in regards to the other articles to which it is interconnected. The sole meaningful merger I could think of would be which currently non-existing articles on the other National Salvation groups in Laos, Thailand, Singapore etc.. (which all come up when googling for this article). --Soman (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we can deduce a greater body of coverage - no, we can't. Substantiating a claim of notability requires the existence of in-depth reliable sources, not the assumption of the existence of such sources. And in this case, all of the sources you have presented are reliable, but are not sufficiently in-depth to support notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Indochinese Communist Party, of which this was a front organization. There aren't sufficient in-depth sources to expand this article beyond a stub. If such sources emerge, the section within Indochinese Communist Party can be expanded until a split justified. ----Pontificalibus 07:42, 30 August 2019 (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. It is not clear from this discussion if there are enough sources that establish notability, as many but not all of them have been contested. COI issues or image issues should be discussed elsewhere; as for the advertising claims, I am pretty certain that on Wikipedia a claim of "advertising" requires more than just a page existing with poor sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Tigers: Shadows Over China[edit]

Flying Tigers: Shadows Over China (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 be a WP:GNG fail that was sloppily accepted through AfC by a reviewer. Of the reviews that exists for the game, only one from IGN Spain appears to be from a reliable source, while the others are from obscure blogs. Just because it exists on Metacritic doesn't indicate notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I object to "sloppily accepting" the article. I cleaned it up a bit and made sure it was acceptable. There are plenty of sources and reviews. The game is on Xbox and Windows and a search of Google news brings up sources of release. Also, go past the first page of google and see the availability of sources to this game. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a difference between reliable and unreliable sources, that can project the illusion of notability. WikiProject VG has plenty of unreliable sources listed at WP:VG/S since there is a tremendous proliferation of small blogs with little or no editorial oversight that are mostly for getting ad clicks. Distilling it down to the reliable sources leaves us with IGN only._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The custom Google search for video game articles shows plenty of results. [20] Dream Focus 20:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Concern Although I stand by my keep, the creator is fishy as they keep uploading images for the game. (COI?). AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reviews like this [21] prove it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 20:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Usually it takes at least 3 RS to prove notability, that is only one. If we have to grasp at straws to prove it's notable, then it falls more into the camp of "advertising" than making an article about an encyclopedic topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It requires two or more, always has, and always will. The article has reviews in it already including [22] for the reliable source IGN giving it significant coverage there. Dream Focus 23:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with the things WP:THREE and WP:BARE say. I could be more lenient with topics that don't get easily covered in online media, but video games and 2 reliable sources equals notability is a big nope for me. Wikipedia isn't a listing of every single video game release (in fact, it would be hard to find a game without 2 reliable source reviews considering all the languages!). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an essay, just someone's personal opinion. This has been discussed over the years, and the general notability guidelines require two or more sources. We go by what meets the guidelines, not personal opinions. Dream Focus 13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "In science, a multiple is the product of any quantity and an integer", or in Merriam-Webster "consisting of, including, or involving more than one". Which does allow different interpretations of what a "multiple" is. If two was enough, it would have been precisely clarified as such. I stand by what I said. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/multiple "More than one". That's precise enough. We're not talking about multiples in a mathematical equation, we're talking about multiple sources. I think its clear enough for people to instantly understand. There is no need to go across all of Wikipedia or the entire written text of the world and change the word "multiple" to "more than one" or "two or more". Dream Focus 14:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think WP:THREE makes sense for games, since they tend to not have incredibly deep sources (like a book written about the subject) and are mostly concentrated to short, online articles. If two is the bare minimum, they should be deep dives into the subject, not just previews-that-aren't-even-reviews._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I wanted to use the official poster for the game, the other image was just a placeholder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksethi (talk contribs) 03:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment First of all, this was a poor draft accept by AmericanAir88, leaving IMDB as a reference among other unreliable sources. I am on the fence right now (hence no vote) since the indepth coverage in Rock, Paper, Shotgun and IGN Spain exists, both reliable. Not enough to sway me to keep considering video games get coverage rather easily, and this one isn't a recent release. Is it OK with the people here if I post the reliability discussion for the Xbox Tavern, Xbox Addict, Generación Xbox, TheXboxHub and TrueAchievements on WP:VG/RS talk page? I personally find all of these to be unreliable one way or another (especially Addict and Generacion), but just to be all sure. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need anyone's permission to do that, if you think it needs to be done so be it. Dream Focus 13:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has received significant coverage from reliable sources (like reviews) that proves it meets the general notability guidelines Taewangkorea (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the sources look pretty sketchy - WP:NVIDEOGAMES states "A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer" - sources for the article like xboxaddict and xbox tavern are not valid because it is an xbox game - other refs are to store.steampowered.com and Microsoft Store, which seems promotional, directing people to where they can buy the game - the references are to websites that do not meet WP:RS: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - this seems to be purely a promotional article for the game with WP:REFBOMBING to WP:MASK lack of notability - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not advertising. I would say by video game standards only one of these reviews are positive, and by those same standards the score isn't anywhere close to a must play game. Marksethi (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... something can be advertising even if the scores aren't positive. The fact that an article about it exists is enough to get more people looking at it. I can't definitively say that it is, but either way, Wikipedia isn't in the business of propping up articles with barely any notability so that a game can get more publicity._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it and it wasn't written with any intention of advertising. I tried to remain unbiased as possible when writing the article. Marksethi (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2019 (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 Carbon-filament bulb. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kyp[edit]

Robert Kyp (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)

Bio of a man whose only claim to notability is holding some patents. The Chicago Tribune ref provided is the single source I can find to support the article (I can’t read it from the UK). There’s a Youtube video, a blog and a family-authored obituary, and nothing else I can find. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Carbon-filament bulb, which in a section called 'Resurgence' names someone who started selling these bulbs in the 1980s, but does not mention Robert Kyp who starting manufacturing them in 1964. The Chicago Tribune source is good, but I can't find anything else besides 2 paras in a 1989 Associated Press article "Right Use of Period Light Fixtures" [23], and a 2001 article in The Houston Herald about a firm called JLD Inc., which took over the manufacture of the bulbs after Kyp closed up (and in which Kyp had a 25% interest) [24]. I don't think that's quite enough to meet WP:BASIC - although there is certainly more information in all three sources which could be added to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I’ve no objection to a merge. Mccapra (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2019 (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 Hyperspace#Popular depictions in science fiction. Tone 08:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of hyperspace depictions in science fiction[edit]

List of hyperspace depictions in science fiction (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)

Improper split from the parent article that is entirely fancruft and original research, goes against WP:IPC suggested guidelines. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to hyperspace#Popular depictions in science fiction as there are too many obscure references here. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable key concept found in multiple notable works. It was broken off from Hyperspace#Popular_depictions_in_science_fiction on 13 August 2019 [25] and this page created. Getting too long there so a spinoff page is justified. As long as everything on the list has its own article, then its a notable list, far more useful than a category would be. Dream Focus 17:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back and trim Of course it was split – these are absurdly long descriptions – but it was not justified. If something it getting too long you should think a little harder about how well each one is written, rather than taking the shortcut of making a new article full of rambling fancruft beyond the recommendations of MOS:PLOT. Each description should be no more than a few sentences, and they need sourcing of some sort. Absurd to assume any list in any state is acceptable because its broader subjects are independently notable. Reywas92^Talk 18:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As this is a split, then there's no reason to delete as splits are reversed by merger. It's not difficult to find sources showing that the topic passes WP:LISTN such as Popular Mechanics and The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Other applicable policies and guidelines include WP:ATD, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Your comment appears to favour merging or redirecting on procedural grounds, which is something no one's likely to disagree with you on, but you bolded the word "keep" in spite of the actual substance of your argument. Would you mind elaborating? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary on merger/split is to point out that we don't have a reason to delete, which is the main issue at AfD. The sources and guidance of WP:LISTN indicate that this is reasonable as a separate list. So, we don't delete and should keep the page which may reasonably summarised as Keep. This !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, don't merge This primary-sourced monstrosity should not exist in its current state, either as a standalone article or as a mess that overwhelms some other unfortunate page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to hyperspace#Popular depictions in science fiction, with a potential light merge of any of the information here that is actually supported by non-primary sources. Which is not very much of it. The vast majority of the information here is overly long plot information being sourced only by the books/movies/TV episodes themselves, and should not be merged back. Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The WP:RS and guidelines of WP:LISTN allow this as a separate list. It serves our readers to keep the list and it is within WP:POLICY Lightburst (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to the main article. This should be a few paragraphs in the parent article talking about major examples used in popular works of fiction. Listing every single usage is simply unnecessary bloat. TTN (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the main uses of Hyperspace in Sci-Fi are covered in the Hyperspace article - this list is WP:FANCRUFT - I don't believe a redirect is advisable because then a "List of..." title would redirect to an article, not a list - I think most people would search for "Hyperspace" rather than "List of hyperspace depictions in science fiction" - to redirect, the article should first be moved to "Hyperspace depictions in science fiction" which would redirect to Hyperspace#Popular depictions in science fiction (am I making this too complicated?) - this article is mostly original research and primary sources - it's too bad because if I was a Sci-Fi writer creating a story about hyperspace, this is where I would come to see how it has been treated by other writers - but usefulness does not mean notable WP:ITSUSEFUL - Epinoia (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2019 (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. Fenix down (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bagus Kahfi[edit]

Bagus Kahfi (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:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "the very obscurity of these two figures" is not an argument which leads to keeping. We write about notable topics, not obscure ones. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siridhammasoka[edit]

Siridhammasoka (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)

Neither entry on this disambiguation page is mentioned in the target article, and therefore both entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. The page therefore fails to provide verified information to the reader and is redundant. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't remove

  Hello

  I'm not sure how to respond to this correctly. I can see how this page doesn't fit neatly into the rules of a Disambiguation page, but the very obscurity of these two figures meant that when researching them for an article I very nearly made the mistake of confusing the two and thought it would be very useful for others who might be liable to make the same mistake to have it clarified that they are not one and the same.

  The ideal approach would to be a full entry for either or both figues, but until someone has the time and energy to do that, I feel it would be an un-necessary loss to remove this even if it does contravene the letter of the wiki law - at least until the subjects have been fleshed out.

  Best wishes

  Malikbek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikbek (talk • contribs) 2019-08-22 18:09:50 (UTC)

• Delete - Siridhammasoka is not mentioned in either of the target articles - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2019 (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. Tone 08:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Innovative Enterprises[edit]

National Innovative Enterprises (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)

Futurology from 2006. Very unclear what the significance of this list of companies is, or was. Rathfelder (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rewrite, the text of the article seems rather promotional, particularly this bit: "The government selected the first 103 firms – all of which have patented technologies, well-known brands, an international competitive edge and technological sustainable development potential". Normally, I'd say this warrants a rewrite, but given the size of the article in question, it seems simpler to just delete it. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 18:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article requires improvement and rewrite. 103.200.134.149 (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NORG & WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Although the article needs improvement, there is sufficient information to validate notability under GNG if you use Chinese: 国家创新企业. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is essentially a list of companies - is it significant that they are part of National Innovative Enterprises? - the article does not clearly state the purpose or objectives of National Innovative Enterprises - we already have a List of companies in China and List of the largest companies in China, do we need another list? Wikipedia:Overlistification - Epinoia (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's a lot of non-sequitur here that I had to sift through. Much of this is essentially arguing WP:INHERITED, which doesn't fly.

The strongest argument to keep is the list of sources presented, some of which are in reputable, mainstream, publications. However, some of these have been shown to be either passing mentions or obligatory local coverage, and thus don't bring much weight to a WP:N discussion. The one source that everybody agrees is totally solid is The Politico, but that's just one source, and one is not enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milk N Cooks[edit]

Milk N Cooks (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 don't think this meets notability criteria. There are a couple of articles about the duo in a reliable source (one is a local writeup which I can't read due to a paywall) and the other is a local article about a drugs charge. The performances noted have, again, been at local festivals. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results. Proposed deletion contested. ... discospinster _talk 18:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - mentions about their work in two WP:RS spaced 3 years apart + an additional WP:RS mention from 4 years prior for legal issues (and this WP:RS does mention their work as DJs) certainly meets WP:GNG. I don't know what discospinster is googling, but when I google "Milk N Cooks McElwain" (without the quotes) I get over 260,000 hits. Banana Republic (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Banana Republic (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• I have added yet another WP:RS coverage. Banana Republic (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I still get 100 hits by searching Milk N Cooks McElwain without the quotes. Also, a short blurb in the entertainment section of a small newspaper does not really contribute towards notability. ... discospinster _talk 19:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that by itself "a short blurb in the entertainment section of a small newspaper does not contribute towards notability", but when combined with a profile in a national publication years later it does add, which is why I think it's a speedy keep. Banana Republic (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ummmm....you are going to get those 260,000 "hits" for googling Milk and Cooks McElwain for all the instances where any of those word combinations appear. (Google Milk and Cooks Trump and you'll get many, many more.) Not all of them are about this subject. The fact that there are not that many beyond routine promotions, downloads and retail sites and their mirrors is why an editor brought this to AfD. But, yes, there is some news coverage as it relates to Trump. Not much, but maybe enough. Beyond that connection---and setting aside the drug related story---the coverage seems to be routine Entertainment guides and appearances write ups. The extent of the local coverage might be enough, but I don't have the time right now to dig deep in the research to weigh in with either a keep or delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A little more Googling yielded additional references

• A mention in a January 2018 Guardian article
• A mention in a January 2018 Vanity Fair article

From WP:GNG, Notability is achieved if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In my opinion, the Politico article by itself satisfies this requirement. All the other references in the article (except for the reference about their legal sentence) + the two mentions in WP:RS listed above should make this a no-brainer keep. Banana Republic (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Guardian reference to the article. There is no need to also add the Vanity Fair reference because as best as I can tell, the Guardian and the Vanity Fair references discuss the same party in which the duo performed. Banana Republic (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Politico article is not enough on its own - we need multiple sources. The Guardian and Vanity Fair articles only each contain a single brief mention. The Illinois Times is effectively just a listing, and the Daily Herald is an indiscriminate source which doesn't confer notability because every person or group who performs locally is likely to be reviewed in such a manner ----Pontificalibus 07:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that the Daily Herald should be considered as an indiscriminate source. The article is a full Q&A with the duo, and it does not appear that the newspaper would conduct a full Q&A with each and every performer that performs at the festival. The point is that it is in addition to the Politico article, and it is three years prior to the Politico article. While neither article by itself would be sufficient to meet WP:GNG, in my opinion, the two of articles combined show enduring coverage which should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Banana Republic (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I finally took the time to research this and have to agree The Politico article is the only significant coverage that fairly argues notability. Others cited, including the added Vanity Fair and Guardian pieces, are not about the subject, it merely references the duo. The local paper Daily Herald coverage of any band’s appearance at the annual Spring Awakening festival is indeed routine/promotional, and additionally fails in that it is an interview of the duo talking about themselves. Additional coverage is mostly local scene/promotional/small time. An example—not referenced with this article—would be this, [26] a blog that solicits writers with the promise of free tickets and boosting one’s resume. (see: [27].) Considering the recent piece (two weeks ago) in Politico is the first good coverage they’ve received, it may lead to more, in which case this could be considered WP:TOOSOO, but as of now this subject has yet to achieve anything of encyclopedic importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Milk N Cooks does not meet the notability criteria for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO). This seems to be an WP:PROMOTION attempt. Eliko007 (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling the article a WP:PROMOTION is absolutely a groundless accusation. The article mentions how they were previously arrested for possession of cocaine. Definitely not something that is found in a WP:PROMOTION article. Banana Republic (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Politico gave a lengthy article on the band. There are other mainstream, reliable sources too such as The Guardian, Daily Herald and Illinois Time. And like him or hate him, Donald Trump is major force in world politics and this group is popular with Trump supporters. Trump/Brexit/Salvini in Italy/AfD are major forces and right-wing populism is sweeping across Europe/world. Furthermore, politics is downwind from culture and the right-wing making forays into culture is significant.Knox490 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: They may be popular with Trump supporters but that doesn't make them notable. The rise of right-wing populism is irrelevant, unless you are suggesting this will make them superstars (and even so WP:TOOSOON would apply). The Guardian article is not about them, they are just mentioned as the entertainment. The Daily Herald and Illinois Times are local papers that report on local personalities, especially when they are have an upcoming show. That leaves the Politico article, a single source that discusses them significantly. Doesn't quite make the cut. ... discospinster _talk 15:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In May of 2019, John Feffer wrote at the left leaning The Nation: "In the Americas, the Trump tsunami has swept across both continents and the 'pink tide' of progressivism has all but disappeared from the southern half of the hemisphere... In this planet-wide rising tide of right-wing populism, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands — Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Uruguay... Worse, crafty operators with even more ambitious agendas stand ready to destroy the liberal status quo once and for all."[28]

The Atlantic, which is left/liberal leaning, just published this story: The Rapid Fall of the Left Sunday’s elections in Greece provide the strongest indication to date that the left is now in deep crisis.

The big shift of politics in the developed world from center-left to right-wing politics is easily among the top 5 big issues in today's world. For better or worse, that is why the media is Trump, Trump, Trump and more Trump in their coverage and politics is even seeping into things like sports shows, etc. This is why Politico gave such big coverage to Milk N Cooks.

Trump, his supporters and right-wing populists are transformational (The USA courts will be affected for a long time, anti-immigrant sentiment is way up around the world, nationalism is way up in world, anti-China sentiment is way up, etc.). And because they are significant/transformational, Wikipedia should cover them. Knox490 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Are you suggesting that all Trump supporters should be eligible for Wikipedia articles per se, regardless of whether or not there is significant coverage of them in multiple reliable sources? This article is about two particular individuals, not about the rise of populism and xenophobia. ... discospinster _talk 19:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are Wikipedians who want Wikipedia to be the world reservior for knowledge. That is unreasonable as it would be too costly and knowledge is expanding at an incredible clip.

But Wikipedia should at a bare minimum do a very good job of covering the extremely significant topics. And I clearly demonstrated that Trump's election/presidency/supporters are extremely significant.

And like I said, politics is downwind from culture (or at least very entwined with culture) and Politico recognizes this matter and devoted a big article on the band (The band is popular among Trump's alt-right supporters). Politico did not write an article on every Trump supporter.

The last election was close in some states if memory serves so the young voters, old voters...every vote counted. The Financial Times recognizes the power of the alt-right in the last election and wrote an article entitled "Why the alt-right is winning America’s meme war" (The article is behind a paywall). Time magazine wrote an article entitled How Donald Trump Is Bringing the Alt-Right to the White House.[29] Although a lot of alt-righters have rebranded themselves as being "Nationalist Right", the alt-right was definitely influential in the last election and these people as an informal corporate group are still very influential.

As an aside, Richard Spencer, who is basically neo-nazi lite, claimed the label of alt-right, but the Nazis were right of the communists, but still left of center (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers' Party).Knox490 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia does have this page: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules which essentially says to use common sense. The article does have a reliable in-depth source via Politico plus some other reliable sources which are not as in-depth. Given the extreme significance Donald Trump's election/presidency/supporters, I think quibbling about sources for this particular article is pointless given the sources it has.

I gave a short quote of a May 2019 The Nation (The Nation leans to the left) article relating to Trump/right, but I want to give a somewhat larger quote to drive the point home: "In the Americas, the Trump tsunami has swept across both continents and the “pink tide” of progressivism has all but disappeared from the southern half of the hemisphere. In Europe, with the recent exception of Spain, the left has been banished to the political margins. In Africa and Asia, socialism has devolved into nationalism, authoritarianism, or just plain corruption. And forget about the Middle East. In this planet-wide rising tide of right-wing populism, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands—Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Uruguay."[30] And since May of 2019, Europe has further shifted to the right (Afd Germany is expanding, etc.).Knox490 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out the worldwide trust in media is very low.[31] All of Wikipedia's "reliable sources" in the mainstream news media said Donald Trump was not going to be elected. Obviously, Trump was elected. And then Wikipedia's "reliable sources" in the mainstream media pushed the Trump-collusion conspiracy theory which Mueller's congressional appearance and report showed was a total joke. Trump is not going to be impeached in all likelihood. I realize it is hard to be a profitable paper or news organization in the age of the internet and political polarization, but Wikipedia's reliable sources list/rule needs a major revamping. Accordingly, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules makes perfect sense in the meantime.Knox490 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All this goes far beyond the scope of this discussion; the point being Milk N Cooks are not notable enough for Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 01:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for reliable sources. Pointing out the mainstream news sources that Wikipedia considers reliable are no longer reliable is spot on and very relevant. Just yesterday, MSNBC retracted a story due to poor/sloppy journalism.[32]

The mainstream news pushing conspiracy theories, engaging in sloppy journalism and engaging in other egregious practices has caused their credibility to plunge in the minds of the public.

I am not happy about this state of affairs. Now I mainly follow important trends and largely ignore the media when possible because what they are often presenting is an alternative make believe universe. Knox490 (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re invoking IAR to keep this article on the basis that published sources in general are no longer reliable (except for Politico it seems)? What do you think Wikipedia articles should be based on? Your view of important trends? I think you’ll have a hard time achieving consensus on that.--Pontificalibus 15:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be based on truth and verifiability. I wish the mainstream press/media were reliable, but they are not.

In the USA: "78% of voters say that what reporters do with political news is promote their agenda. They think they use incidents as props for their agenda rather than seeking accurately record what happened. Only 14% think that a journalist is actually reporting what happened... If a reporter found out something that would hurt their favorite candidate, only 36% of voters think that they would report that."[33]Knox490 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia sparks controversy as it appears to adopt calling ICE detention centers “concentration camps”[34].

By relying on left leaning newspapers (so-called reliable sources), who are in bed with Democrats, Wikipedia is beginning to descend into madness. I took history classes on the Nazis from a teacher who went to Germany to do research. ICE facilities are not concentration/internment camps. Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler. "Media ethics writer compares Trump to Hitler".[35]Knox490 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just because someone has something vaguely to do with Trump does not make them notable. Beyond the politico article, the coverage is lacking. They fail WP:NMUSICIAN, and they're certainly not notable for just a drug incident (which seems like WP:UNDUE coverage or coatracking BLPCRIME stuff anyway). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A real borderline case. The Politico article is an excellent source here, independent, analytical and with thousands of words of coverage. This gets us very far but generally we want more than one good source and none of the other sources is half as good. Do they still suffice to push this just barely over the line? I don't know, it's a close call. Haukur (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:WHYN "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view".----Pontificalibus 13:32, 31 August 2019 (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.