< 16 February	18 February >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Breaking Bad film[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a film that only just commenced photography a matter of days ago, and is not yet close to commercial release. I initially redirected this to the television series, only to have the creator revert me on the grounds of WP:NFF -- but NFF does not hand every forthcoming film an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's started shooting, because even films that have started shooting can still fall apart and never actually get released at all.
NFF admittedly isn't crystal clear about how notability really works for films -- I'll grant that it can be interpreted the way the creator wants it to be, if you cherry-pick NFF while ignoring the rest of NFILM, but that's actually incorrect. The actual notability test for unreleased films is as follows: even once principal photography has commenced, a film is still not notable yet unless it generates a massively outsized volume of production coverage on the order of the Star Wars franchise. Most films do not receive that depth of production coverage, however, and can be referenced only to a very small handful of sources, just as this one is -- so most films are not considered notable enough for standalone articles until they have been released.
Further, two of the four sources here are Uproxx and a non-notable film blog, which are unreliable sources that cannot help to establish a film's notability at all — which means that what's left is not enough coverage to get this into the "ubernotable like Star Wars" class of films instead of the "wait until a release date is confirmed" class. So no prejudice against recreation once a release date (and an actual title) have actually been announced, but making a film notable enough for a standalone article while it's still in the production pipeline requires a lot more than just one source confirmating that the film has started shooting. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It is not “cherry picking”. The project at most needs to be filming. It also needs media coverage, which it has garnered. It’s notable and it’s so absurd that because it’s not titled yet it’s up for deletion. I used only one source to verify the filming, but I can easily add in plenty more. It passes the requirements to exist in the mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 00:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With extremely rare exceptions that require much more sourcing than has been shown here, the requirement for a film to exist in mainspace is that it has been released. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has four sources actually. By which source do you think is a blog? The article doesn’t need to have a release date or a title to meet requirements that so silly. Rusted AutoParts 00:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which source do I think is a blog? How about the one that says it's a blog right in its own damn masthead? I'll let you go discover which one that is for yourself, but trust me that one of them does. And I said there were four sources here, but pointed out why two of them aren't cutting any ice — so what makes you think saying "it has four sources actually" is some kind of mic drop? Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s on you to bolster your claim, say the name here. And it’s not a mic drop, we’re not in a rap battle. I am battling in Defense of a Wikipedia guideline being trampled on by ones personal pickiness. Rusted AutoParts 00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already provided all the "bolstering" as I'm obligated to — the reason I'm telling you to go find it for yourself is because I want you to notice the thing you were supposed to notice before you used it as a reference in the first place, so I'm under no obligation to do your homework for you. I don't have to name the source before it's "proven" — the source's presence in the article proves itself. And if you think I'm the one being "personally picky" while you're "defending a Wikipedia guideline", then you've got that bass-ackward — I am expressing no variant personal opinions of any sort, and am simply applying NFILM exactly 100 per cent correctly to the way NFILM works: being able to source that principal photography has commenced is not a free notability pass for every unreleased film, but applies only to a select tier of hypernotable films that get a lot of coverage while most other films do have to wait until they're released. Not because I said so, but because tens of thousands of past AFD discussions on unreleased films said so. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/Film gets cited by most reliable sources. As it's so bothersome to you it's very easily replaceable. And yes, it is your personal opinion that the articles you've nominated aren't notable. This Breaking Bad movie has been extensively discussed in the trades, and has been directly discussed by a cast member on notable talk shows. How is that not notable coverage? Rusted AutoParts 01:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, Q&A interviews in which a person who is directly associated with the film is speaking about it himself are not independent of the film — read the "reliable sources" section of NFILM, specifically the bullet point on "independence". A person who has a direct personal affiliation with the film speaking about it in his own words doesn't help to establish its notability, because he's directly affiliated with it. For another, the amount of coverage that the film has received as of this point is not "unusual", compared to most films, at all — literally any film that gets started at all can always show one or two or three sources. What it takes to make a film notable while it's still in the production pipeline is a volume of coverage that significantly exceeds what most films routinely get. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the point. You mentioned “hypernotable films that get a lot of coverage”. Being discussed and promoted ona widely viewed talk show, where’s it confirmed there, is the highest possible coverage a developing project can receive. Regardless, witholding film articles until only when they get released is a disservice to readers wondering about these projects, and that isn’t what I was led to believe Wikipedia was all about. Rusted AutoParts 05:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask if those who feel this isn’t warranting mainspace status yet to vote for it to be returned to draftspace. It’ll be a complete waste of time for me if all the time and work I put into assembling this article is tossed away just because it doesn’t have a title yet. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Even if the worst happens and this film ends up never seeing the inside of a cinema, it'll likely still be noteworthy enough to document what happened with its production. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. I also feel that Locke Cole makes a very salient point. Somethingwickedly (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THE. NOTABILITY. TEST. FOR. FILMS. IS. A. COMMERCIAL. RELEASE. DATE. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WHERE. IS. THAT. IN. FILM. GUIDELINES. Rusted AutoParts 01:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." It's even right there in the NFF section, exactly where you said it wasn't. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And who dictates whether the production is noteworthy? You? Hate to live in that world. A film with reliably sourced production should remain, end of. Rusted AutoParts 01:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every film can always show a source or two about its production. What makes a film notable on that basis is the ability to show a volume of sourcing that expands well beyond the simply expected and routine, as in the Star Wars or Marvel franchises. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that’s just an unrealistic metric, and one that hardly any upcoming project not a tentpole project can ever hope to live up to. The metric/requirement that I’ve been conditioned to follow in my years on this site is we had to reliably prove the film will actually happen. IE, filming dates, location shoots, casting, when filming ends, etc. Not once has the condition that “it must be released been insisted upon. Maybe it would be easier if you showed a few examples of these AFDs you keep talking about, I’ll show you AFDs that the film not filming yet was the only reason why it was not able to be in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 15:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Breaking Bad. At the moment, with so little to say about it, I favour the latter, but deletion is a non-starter. There is already a lot of coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per coverage, per Netflix and confirmed production.BabbaQ (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an immense amount of coverage of the film, despite its early state (just try searching "breaking bad movie" on Google News). Even if we accept that most films should not have an article before they have a release date, this strikes me as an example that has attracted and will continue to attract an extraordinary amount of anticipation. Colin M (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable production that is going to gather a lot of interest. Good, reliable sources, and principal photography has begun. JustaFilmFan (talk) 22:03, 24 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fires over Tetovo[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:NBOOK or, more broadly, WP:GNG. Madness ^Darkness 23:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete While the book's subject is certainly notable, the article about the book is stub that lacks any sources that establishes the book's notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Resnjari (talk) 10:20, 23 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brewers-Pirates rivalry[edit]

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

Two teams playing one another regularly does not automatically constitute a rivalry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Under G1, A3 and A7. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this meets CSD, but definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Muboshgu. To state the obvious, this just isn't an established baseball rivalry. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just realized this is really the second nomination for this article to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orioles-Pirates_rivalry for prior discussion. This article was considered along with a group of five others that were all deleted, FWIW. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:42, 19 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Troughton-Smith[edit]

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

The notability of the subject is not clear. Article is of poor quality, with few citations and multiple page issues. Nullpixel (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be promotional and WP:COI. Poorly claimed "public" appearances doesn't mean it is notable. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the nominator and other contributors, I have spent a little time reviewing the text and the references linked in the article (and other mentions of the subject elsewhere), and do not see that WP:NBIO is met. Does the subject's name appear in some tech-press articles? Yes. Is it non-trivial coverage? No - probably not. Take for example, this Wired UK article from 2011 which is used to support some of the text. It is substantively about an app and its creator - who isn't the subject here. The subject here is mentioned - as the app's developer (coder). This is just one example, but it is one of several that do not substantively contribute to GNG and NBIO. While the subject is, undoubtedly, the primary topic in some other coverage (like this Irish Times piece), I am disquieted by the level of "extrapolation" in the article text that was made of this coverage. (Coverage in two tech-press articles does not support a claim of being a "poster child". Nor does one link to an awards page support a claim of winning "many accolades and awards"). In honesty, it is this level of inappropriate COI, PROMO and AUTOBIO that has pushed me from 'maybe there is a little coverage....' to 'delete for GNG, COI and NOTCV reasons'. In short: Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. He has written some iPhone apps which are not in themselves notable; they would never qualify for a WP article - E.g. he would not pass as a tech-BLP. Because he writes apps, he gets early editions of new iPhones and then reviews them for the Irish media (doesn't appear for wider tech products), and per Guliolopez, the good RS he throws up are not specifically about him per se, but his name being mentioned in the course of doing an upcoming iPhone review for Irish media. Hardly appears outside Ireland. Britishfinance (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is dated and poor, but as "Steve Troughton-Smith", he's become well-known in the tech world for spelunking trough Apple beta code and finding things in there that form the basis of major press reports. However, that's dependent on somebody doing the work to actually add all that… Mattyjohn (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All I could find were reviews of new iPhones in Irish media. Are there other significant articles on this subject from RS that you have seen? Britishfinance (talk) 09:17, 21 February 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. Withdrawn by nominator (fixed the template, it was not properly closed). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Dust Trio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - has been without sources for too long. I recommend moving it to userspace by creator/other. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal by nominator. This page has high notability. However, I have tagged a suggestion of moving it to userspace. Anyone who has any doubts, feel free to remove the tag. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - A lack of sources is not a deletion criteria. Meets WP:GNG. Souces at: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – What the nominator appears to be saying is yet another manifestation of the theory that our coverage of professional wrestling should mirror favored cherry-picked sources, nothing more and nothing less. The third section starts with "The threesome of Lewis, Sandow, and Mondt (later deemed "The Gold Dust Trio" in the 1937 book Fall Guys)"...stop. Google doesn't return very many hits on this book before starting to return hits on Of Mice and Men, for some reason. What I did find was convincing enough on first glance, this page especially. J. Michael Kenyon was a highly credible wrestling historian. His review would show that reliable sources have existed on this topic for at least 80+ years. There's a little thing called WP:BEFORE that folks are expected to abide by before wasting everyone's time at AFD. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is not really how an AFD should be used. One can move the content to draftspace or a sandbox without deleting the clearly notable subject.★Trekker (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is listed as a high-importance article and no rationale for deletion has been provided. No sources is a problem but this isn't the right solution.LM2000 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, GNG is not about article quality or lack of sources presented, despite what thr nominator seems to think.MPJ-DK (talk) 12:40, 18 February 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seymore Butts[edit]

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO, won notable awards. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Although it's not noted in his article, Butts is a member of the AVN and XRCO Halls of Fame for his contributions to porn. The Salon article ref in the article notes him being a famous pioneer for Gonzo Porn as did PBS Frontline here. Plus there is him starring in his own Reality Show on Showtime for Four Seasons.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need widely available reliable sources, not awards and halls of fame created by a publicity seeking industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except there are two independent news sources (Salon and PBS Frontline) that assert he was an important figure in the industry. Plus there are lots of independent coverage outside of the porn industry. article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4, article 5, article 6, article 7.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Keep. He meets WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). QED. Britishfinance (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:NPORN, probably passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as well. Those who are recommending deletion: Have you actually read the article? Glasser ("Seymore Butts") was one of the originators of Gonzo pornography, his film series Seymore Butts won Best Gonzo Series AVN Awards in 1999 and 2000, he was the subject of a series on Showtime. How much more notable can a director of pornography be? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if asked to name a male porn actor there are only two I can name (due to mainstream media coverage - this guy and Ron Jeremy. Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 24 February 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Delano[edit]

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

A bunch of minor awards do not meet PORNBIO and a bunch of interviews does not a secondary source make to meet GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Nightsmove award is notable enough. Clarification with PORNBIO should be reached within it's respective Wikiproject. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a failure of the general notability guidelines. It is time to scap the pornography guidelines. They have given up inordinate coverage of pornographic actors that has undermined the development of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. She meets WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). It seems like you have nominated most of the pornographic acting community on WP for AfD without reading WP:PORNBIO? Britishfinance (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets PORNBIO and GNG. Why "interviews does not a secondary source"?Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the awards are notable ones. "Best Latina Performer", "Best Ass" and "Best Butt" aren't significant awards. Fails both PORNBIO and GRG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the links to industry awards are not helping her notability because the awards are industry advertising tools. Her minor TV and magazine appearences don't meet WP:ENT. Most of the bio material is likely to be inaccurate because bio material is routinely and systekatically faked in the porn world for marketing. For example, prove she is bisexual... or is that part of the act? Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 24 February 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 Khan Shaheb Osman Ali Stadium. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Khan Shaheb Osman Ali Stadium[edit]

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

This is classical WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Five numbers not enough. Other sports should have stuff like this also, like intenational soccer goals in stadiums. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a continuation of a WP:POINTY set of select nominations. The nom was recently blocked with part of their unblock request saying "At least impose cricket sanctions on me" (22 January 2019). This is off the back of this filibuster at WT:CRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that, it seems that the above list has now been redirected. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reading WP:NOTPOINTy. You seem to accuse me of that whenever I am starting discussions. I have given enough time to cool down and a proper discussion should be made to get rid of this loophole. Also, I reverted ImSonyR9's redirect since he cannot do that without consensus and edit summary. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A better redirect target would be the article about the stadium in my view. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Khan Shaheb Osman Ali Stadium and redirect - Unnecessary content fork. Not enough items on the page to warrant a separate list page. – Pee Jay 19:27, 18 February 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. postdlf (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is classical WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Five numbers not enough. Other sports should have stuff like this also, like intenational soccer goals in stadiums. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? Renominating less than a month after Keep decision on grounds of WP:SNOW, when there are more than 100 similar sporting achievement articles. What's going on here? Akld guy (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That will push us to the same loophole. I would look at it freshly. If other reviews really count, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium, which actually reached consensus. Also, the SNOW was because of the MULTIAFD complex. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-write to include the Test match five wicket hauls - the article says there have been 45 of them. That's more than enough given the history of the ground. I have concerns about the renomination as well, but will take each of the nominations as individual cases for now. I will, however, note my surprise that this article in particular has been nominated and my disappointment with the POINTY nature of the comment by the nominator in response to comments above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

45 of them? Where? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake - it says there have been 67 Test cricket fifers. That would appear to be true as I've just learned how to use StatsGuru on CricInfo by the looks of it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a continuation of a WP:POINTY set of select nominations. The nom was recently blocked with part of their unblock request saying "At least impose cricket sanctions on me" (22 January 2019). This is off the back of this filibuster at WT:CRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reading WP:NOTPOINTy. You seem to accuse me of that whenever I am starting discussions. I have given enough time to cool down and a proper discussion should be made to get rid of this loophole. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The stats are given context therefore passes WP:NOTSTATS and it has been shown that these can be improved to be featured lists one day. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. Blue Square Thing stated that the list is more than 50, and I am trusting them. I overlooked this and it should kept according to my original intentions. Further discussions will take place at WT:CRICKET. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC

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 Mahinda Rajapaksa International Stadium. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Mahinda Rajapaksa International Stadium[edit]

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

This is classical WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Three numbers not enough. Other sports should have stuff like this also, like intenational soccer goals in stadiums. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the stadium article where this can be dealt with in a short paragraph of prose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per BST. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Mahinda Rajapaksa International Stadium and redirect - Unnecessary content fork. Not enough items to warrant a standalone list. – Pee Jay 19:28, 18 February 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 Sheikh Abu Naser Stadium. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sheikh Abu Naser Stadium[edit]

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

This is classical WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Six numbers not enough. Other sports should have stuff like this also, like intenational soccer goals in stadiums. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to the stadium article where this stuff, in cases such as this, can be dealt with. In three Test matches there have been five five-wicket hauls, suggesting the feat is, in the case of this ground, not particularly notable. There is already a "numbers" area on the stadium article and I'd suggest that this content would be best dealt with there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No reason why these can't be included in the parent article. Is there consensus for when these lists should be made, i.e. minimum number of five wicket hauls? StickyWicket (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FYI, the parent article is List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Bangladeshi cricket grounds. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Sheikh Abu Naser Stadium and redirect - Unnecessary content fork. Not enough items for a standalone list. – Pee Jay 19:33, 18 February 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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 03:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Punjab Cricket Association IS Bindra Stadium[edit]

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

This is classical WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Four numbers not enough. Other sports should have stuff like this also, like intenational soccer goals in stadiums. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complete the list or redirect if no-one's willing to do that. I could 15 Test and 2 ODI five wicket hauls at this stadium in a reasonable number of matches. The list shows three of these. The numbers are reasonable for a standalone list, but only if someone's willing to actually complete it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and complete - I'll complete this list now. Absolutely ludicrous to suggest that this is listcruft when other such articles exist. 10 items is usually the threshold for a content fork to legitimately exist and this one meets that requirement, they just haven't bothered to fill in the table. – Pee Jay 19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Thanks to PeeJay2K3 for completing the list. The issue is solved. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:56, 19 February 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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 05:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lancaster Park[edit]

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

This is classical WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Five numbers not enough. Other sports should have stuff like this also, like intenational soccer goals in stadiums. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Blue Square Thing stated that the list is more than 50, and I am trusting them. I overlooked this and it should kept according to my original intentions. Further discussions will take place at WT:CRICKET. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this page may be instructive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

That will push us to the same loophole. I would look at it freshly. If other reviews really count, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium, which actually reached consensus. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, let each page stand or fall on its own merit. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. This information is already available through the external link to the ESPNCricinfo StatsGuru. Although 49 instances of 5WI were recorded, the article mentions just five. Ajf773 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A discussion was started on WT:CRIC about these lists, but fell away when the nominator was blocked. I think that is a better forum to discuss what criteria should be used to keep / delete these lists, rather than starting individual AfDs. Spike 'em (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you referred to this one. It didn't fell because I was blocked, no consensus was reached anyways. It's quite difficult to discuss there. Members accused me of WP:POINT and claimed that "AFD "episode 2"" and I quote one of them, "there was no good reason shown at the AFD to delete and there's absolutely no good reason to "merge by country".". Most of them were furious because I did MULTIAFD. Some suggested to AFD individually instead of MULTIAFD, and here am I. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and complete the list. There are absolutely tonnes (like, >50) of Test match five wicket hauls but whoever decided to create the article was, frankly, too lazy to bother with them. If no-one's willing to add them then by all means redirect to the ground where a prose summary might be written. A note might be placed on the article creator's talk page suggesting that they might want to actually bother to do things properly in future - this is not the only case lists have been created partially. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stats are given context therefore passes WP:NOTSTATS and it has been shown that these can be improved to be featured lists one day. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Notability is not determined by content. For context, the lead only summarizes the stats. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spike and BST. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Can I also raise an objection to the fact that separate nominations were created for List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Khan Shaheb Osman Ali Stadium, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Mahinda Rajapaksa International Stadium, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sheikh Abu Naser Stadium, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Punjab Cricket Association IS Bindra Stadium and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lancaster Park? I understand that each nomination might result in a different outcome, but these articles are all related, and if the nominator has an issue with all of them, they should have been nominated together. – PeeJay 19:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness to the nominator they were dragged over the coals for a collective nomination, his could be seen (with a bit of imagination) as a logical next step. However, I hope they one day find a less taxing way to address their problem with these pages. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  - Ideally, I would suggest they should have tested the water by nominating just one of the smaller ones first and then gone for a bulk nomination once they found out what the community's general feeling was. – PeeJay 21:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dushan Jugum: There is a huge difference between nominating all 100+ articles of this sort to make a point, and doing a multi AfD for the current batch under consideration.
    - PeeJay2K3: To be fair to IW, there is a precedent to delete some of these articles, which started this all off. Spike 'em (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article with the 46 Test match fwh on the ground and dealt with some of the other issues been discussed. This could now use closing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:48, 22 February 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 speedy keep. While the good faith of the nominator is not in question, the rapid restarting of the discussion followed by more of the same (unanimous keeps) lends itself towards being speedy kept again. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-subscribed YouTube channels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Trivial, not encyclopedic, arbitrary, listcruft, promotional, mirror of other sources and WP:NOTSTATS. Constantly changing information. This is more of a fan site and should be removed. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that the nominator has not completed WP:BEFORE, as the previous deletion nomination was closed just four days ago with a WP:SNOW speedy keep. The reasons for keeping the article still stand, and have not changed in the past four days. (see previous discussion here). MarkZusab (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Rapid renomination of an article which was closed as a speedy keep borders on WP:DISRUPT. Ifnord (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comments: Just to clarify, I wasn't aware that it was previously nominated, so no disruption or making a point. Let's hope for valid reasoning and civil discussion. I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts (2nd nomination) and decided to start this as well. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you are aware, perhaps you would consider withdrawing the nomination? Ifnord (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to an admin. I would prefer fresh comments though. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have already had a discussion on this topic, my original arguments still stand. Skirts⁸⁹ 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DISRUPT, as this was nominated immediately after the first one was already closed as WP:SNOW Keep. Vivexdino (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It may be that no disruption was intended, but nonetheless, the article should be kept as only four days have passed since the previous discussion resulted in keep. Novusuna ^talk 01:36, 18 February 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) 00:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Renner[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG - I can find no mentions of him in any independent sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete neither do I. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: totally relies on self-published or affiliated sources. No indication of meeting BIO. SITH (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable (no independent sources) --DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article was updated, now it contains at least 5 independent sources including Amazon, Digital Journal, Google Books, etc. FrantisekKorbel (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Amazon links and the Google Books link do nothing but demonstrate that he has written a number of self-published books. The books have received no non-UGC reviews as far as I can tell, and so this does not demonstrate notability. The digital journal site is literally a press release about a project he is involved in - it is neither independent nor reliable. None of this contributes towards notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent, reliable sourcing to substantiate notability, offered or to be found. WP:NOTPROMO --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:05, 24 February 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unincorporated Top End Region[edit]

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

The article is one of many mass-produced stubs, and appears to be a simple misreading. "Unincorporated Top End Region" appears on a map to indicate that the area is unincorporated, not that it is incorporated with the word "Unincorporated" at the beginning of its title Imaginatorium (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC) (Followup comment by proposer) Note that I added a comment to Top End to the effect that much/most of it is unincorporated. This is probably, I submit, all that needs to be said about the local government (non-)arrangements in this region. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment I already explained Imaginatorium about this. Look like he is not paying much attention and recommending articles to delete. This is completely wasting my time and others and also others also explained him about this. Please refer this too: https://regional.gov.au/local/publications/reports/2014_2015/National_LGA_15.pdf. Reference one is clearly noted "Finniss-Mary is part of Unincorporated Top End Region" as it is mentioned in the articles. I also informed him the cousil structure in England is differed from the administration structure in Australia by informing him "administration structures are differed from country to country" based on his reply.Shevonsilva (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is also recommending to delete a 2nd level administrative division of the world 6th largest country. 17:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment I'm not familiar with the general practices for these stubs, but it seems like what can be said about Unincorporated Top End Region can be covered in Northern Territory. I found this explanation on a gov't pdf: The Unincorporated Top End Region contains those areas in the NT that are not part of an incorporated local government council area and therefore no local government consents or licenses are anticipated to be required for the development of the CBC and BMC. Schazjmd (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it is a part of it and administration structure is well different. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since you seem to claim to be an expert on this, can you explain what exactly is the "administration structure" of the part of NT which is unincorporated in the "Top End" region? Can you say anything which might convince me that you understand what "unincorporated" means? Imaginatorium (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The nearest interpretation i found is unincorporated = Unlike many other countries, Australia has only one level of local government immediately beneath state and territorial governments. A local government area (LGA) often contains several towns and even entire cities. Thus, aside from very sparsely populated areas and a few other special cases, almost all of Australia is part of an LGA. Unincorporated areas are often in remote locations, cover vast areas or have very small populations. Postal addresses in unincorporated areas, as in other parts of Australia, normally use the suburb or locality names gazetted by the relevant state or territorial government. Thus, there is rarely any ambiguity regarding addresses in unincorporated areas. and the above interpretation is also covering idea of administrative structures related to unincorporated regions. Shevonsilva (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By its very definition, the unincorporated Top End region is not incorporated and therefore not part of any LGA. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If that is so, we have to modify Local government areas of the Northern Territory too in order to make consistency. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current stub says less than the entry in the table Current local government areas, and I am not sure that there is much more that could be said. Having gone to that table, I also saw the stub article for Darwin Rates Act Area. In the table, that name is followed in brackets by 'East Arm', and I think that East Arm is a much more likely search term. A major feature at East Arm is Port Darwin, but that article says nothing about which local government area (LGA) it is in. If it is the Darwin Rates Act Area (I will have to check more), it would be much more useful to have the LGA named in the Port Darwin article than have a separate stub. I'm not sure about the Unincorporated Top End Region, which has in brackets 'Finnis-Mary' (presumably meant to be Finniss-Mary). I think it may be the LGA for two geographically separated areas, around the Finniss River southwest of Darwin, and the Mary River east of Darwin. I'll check for more information and think about where it would most usefully be included. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Darwin Rates Act Area is an unincorporated area. East Arm is a part of Darwin Rates Act Area or defined as a separate area from Darwin Rates Act Area, depending on the electorial year, for example. Port Darwin is only a port which area mainly covering the area around the port. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming "LGA" is "Local Government Area", which surely means an area having a local government entity. But this is (part of) the majority unincorporated area of Northern Territories, and has no local government. It is therefore not an "LGA". User:Imaginatorium (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No, the majority of the Top End is not unincorporated, as the article Local government areas of the Northern Territory makes clear. Nor is the majority of the NT, again made clear in the same article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

depending on the consensus, we may or may not have to modify Local government areas of the Northern Territory too. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not well but I will join this soon. Shevonsilva (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The idea that the Unincorporated Top End Area is an LGA is oxymoronic, or so it seems: if it's unincorporated, how can it have local government? This isn't the USA, where you have county governments everywhere, and they're generally a mix of municipalities and unincorporated areas. Meanwhile, citation #1 treats unincorporated territory the same way, regardless of whether it's most of the territory (pre-reform) or just occasional bits (post-reform). So I suspect that the contents are entirely wrong, and while it may be reasonable to have an article covering these places, it wouldn't keep any of the current content. Note that ((Local Government Areas of the Northern Territory)) gained a link to this title in May 2011, courtesy of ClaretAsh, but that seems like a convenience thing (in the USA, we do this regularly, e.g. the "unorganized territories" section of ((Piscataquis County, Maine))) so the unincorporated areas wouldn't get left out. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the content to remove the disambiguity and depending on the consensus, it can be modified again. The exact term "Unincorporated Top End Region" is the general term used and I must be there as I believe. Thanks. Before recommending something to delete, please search about it clearly with regading its own context. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before writing articles, please make sure that they're accurate, instead of creating nonsense. If you resume creating pages like this after your hand heals, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep not sure what most of the discussion really shows about understanding some of the more idiosyncratic aspects of governance over land in the Northern Territory, but my position is, if it is indentified as being part of the land of the Northern Territory, however slight the stub might be I see no reason to delete it. JarrahTree 06:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of WP:TNT, the article being so minimal that it is highly confusing and hence misleading. The subject looks like it is just the statistical collation of left over non contiguous areas which are not otherwise incorporated. This either needs to be properly explained, and thence with whatever data is relevant, OR it becomes simply a redirect and merge to a main Northern Territory article where the left over bits can be described. The content of a lot of the good faith but opposing discussion points above I suggest demonstrates the current encyclopedic failings of the article. Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you properly check the article? You can click on hyperlinks if you don't understand any part. Which part is misleading? did you check what we are talking here? Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. I had to read through the references to work out what the article was about. A reader should not have to do that. If a reader cannot get a basic understanding of the subject matter by reading the article, which by definition is why an article exists at all, then the article has a serious problem. For example, the text is an unincorporated area as far as I can tell from the references is simply wrong. As far as I can tell it should read something like is an administrative grouping of unincorporated areas. I suggest if the article was fit for purpose it would not be at AfD at all. If you feel I still have the wrong end of the stick then I suggest it just adds weight to my belief that the article is critically lacking. It should not be too hard for someone who knows a bit about LGAs, etc., in the NT to fix. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoziwe, it may look from the stub as if it is "the statistical collation of left over non contiguous areas which are not otherwise incorporated", but it's not - it's two areas, which may be contiguous, I'm not sure. (I found a good map yesterday, but can't find it now.) There are other unincorporated regions, including 3 others which could be considered part of the Top End - Alyangula, Nhulunbuy Corporation (does that still apply, now the mine has closed, I wonder??) and "Darwin Rates Act Area". Without any further information, I agree that this stub is highly confusing, and not helpful at all. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This link, currently reference 4, as far as I can tell names ~~five~~four geographically separate areas making up the Unincorporated Top End Region. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes it even more confusing. That is certainly not what the article Local government areas of the Northern Territory indicates, as it lists Nhulunbuy, Alyangula, and the "Darwin Rates Act Area" separately from the "Unincorporated Top End Region". The ABS page definitely includes Yulara, so the population figures don't apply to this article. At the moment, that seems to be all I'm sure about! If I had time, and as I live in the NT, I could maybe ask in the relevant department (surely an NT government department, not the federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development which prepared that map???) - but that's unlikely for a few weeks at least. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ABS page is for "Unincorporated NT", which is not the same as the unincorporated Top End. The latter forms part of unincorporated NT. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I am also going for WP:TNT, despite the article having only one sentence, and despite the creator's best intentions. The discussion here shows how confusing that sentence is! The article Local government areas of the Northern Territory may be slightly confusing in including unincorporated areas in the table of LGAs - I think that may be because they are defined in and excluded from the NT Local Government Act, which I have been trying to find online (so far without success). I think the unincorporated areas are more accurately termed Statistical Local Areas [7], which is an Australian Bureau of Statistics term, but it seems that the NT calls them Local Government Areas even though they have no local government. A confusing state of affairs which is not helped by this article, unfortunately. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I support the retention for much the same reasons as 'JarrahTree'. For your information, I have edited the article including the replacement of "Category:Local government areas of the Northern Territory" with "Category:Unincorporated areas of the Northern Territory". Also, I have upgraded "Template:Local Government Areas of the Northern Territory" to identified the unincorporated areas existing in the NT. I will continue to add to the article tomorrow as it is late in South Australia. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the adding the coords as you have is highly misleading. As far as I can tell, there are four separate areas making up the region, each separated by hundreds of kilometers, at three very different corners of the compass, with large incorporated areas between them. I really do think the article needs a complete reset, and any map and infobox needs to show the four areas as per the current reference 4 does. Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HI Aoziwe, I disgree with your statement. The coordinates are NOT misleading; they are representative. The infobox template used on the article only allows for one set of coordinates; I look at a source (i.e. Division of Lingiari map at AEC map) and noticed that the Unincorporated Top End Region includes the Litchfield National Park which is a well-known place if you have lived in the Northern Territory. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Where did these coordinates come from? Were they reliably sourced? On Google maps the coordinates are about half wway between Adelaide River and Litchfield while this map shows areas well to the east stretching from the coast in the north to almost as far south as Katherine's latitude. The coords are not representative of this region at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is misleading, although there are only two areas (Finniss River area, and Mary River area) within this unincorporated area, and they are not separated by hundreds of kilometers! The ABS "Unincorporated NT", now included in a reference in the article, shows ALL the unincorporated areas in the NT, not just the "Unincorporated Top End Region". Zoom in and move around on the map on the ABS link, and you will also see Nhulunbuy in East Arnhem, Alyangula on Groote Eylandt, the "Darwin Rates Act Area" under the letters WIN in Darwin, and Yulara near Uluru in Central Australia. They are all unincorporated areas, but not part of this "Unincorporated Top End Region", which comprises the Finniss region (to the west of Darwin) and the Mary region (to the east of Darwin), and which appears to be separated only by a small stretch of the Stuart Highway. Having any article about the "Unincorporated Top End Region" which does not show a map with those two regions highlighted would be useless (as this discussion here rather shows!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I meant to add, the population given by the ABS is for all the unincorporated areas, not just for the one this article is about, so that should also be removed from this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many maps and definitions are there of this thing called "Unincorporated Top End Region"? This NTFederal Government link, currently reference 2, defines "Unincorporated Top End Region" as four areas (Finniss, Douglas-Daly, Nhulunby, Alyangula, the latter two being a very long way from the former two). This ABS link seems to define "Unincorporated Top End Region" as only one area (Finniss-Mary) and does not provide any separate data for it, instead using the legacy statistical unit of a very different thing called "Unincorporated NT". From the (sub)area names you have provided there seems to be a third definition? All this just goes to show that the current article is fatally flawed. If we are to have an article called "Unincorporated Top End Region" it must correctly go into this type of detail. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also included the sub-areas too, and, coordinates were removed till someone comes up with a better map. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoziwe, very good question! I am not at all sure how accurate that first map is (a federal government map, not an NT one) - it shows Douglas-Daly where other maps have the "Mary" part of Finniss-Mary. Douglas-Daly is probably the lower part of that region (see [8]), but I would be very surprised if it was used to refer to the whole of the area extending to the northern coast, as shown on the government map. That's where the Mary River is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen. I must have missed it somewhere. Can you provide me with a link to "your" map. Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean where I found Douglas-Daly? That was just Google Maps, which that #2 is a link to - but if it doesn't work for you, just google Douglas-Daly, and I expect you'll see what I did. I just looked at the website of the NT Dept of Local Government, Housing and Community Development before, and there really is no Local Government Act online - just a review report dated (I think) 2016. There are maps of the local government areas, but none of the areas that don't have local governments. Not very helpful! RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RebeccaGreen. I found the google maps version of Douglas-Daly BUT that is different from the "Fed" version. It shows only the southern portion and does not refer to the northeastern portion in the "Fed" version. Just more confusion. Without some expert authority to sort it all out this article, any references I can find are just all contradictory and any article it seems at this point in time is simply unsafe. Aoziwe (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Google maps show postal code arrangement withing 0822 NT area. Reference 2 shows statistical area. These area are administratively under the relevant state or territorial governmentShevonsilva (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shevonsilva, in my reply to Aoziwe, I referred to the link to Google maps that I included in my comment above, starting "very good question". It shows the Douglas-Daly region. I was not referring to any references included in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the deletion for is "The article is one of many mass-produced stubs, and appears to be a simple misreading. "Unincorporated Top End Region" appears on a map to indicate that the area is unincorporated, not that it is incorporated with the word "Unincorporated" at the beginning of its title", and, now it is clear that the reason is not right. I hope we can keep the article. Thank. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, at the time the article was nominated it said The Unincorporated Top End Region is a local government area of the Northern Territory, Australia,[9] which is clearly not correct and was indeed "a simple misreading". That there is still confusion over what actually constitutes the region to the point that incorrect population figures and coordinates have been added still does not bode well for the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused The NT_LGA_15 map that is used as a reference to the statement that there are two areas shows 4 as it includes "Nhulunby" (I think it means Nhulunbuy) and Alyangula as well. Local government areas of the Northern Territory has a table that includes unincorporated areas including one called "Nhulunbuy Corporation". Is there any government department (at any level) that treats the Unincorporated Top End Region in aggregate, but differently from the rest of the seven unincorporated areas of the NT? If so, I would !vote to keep this article and include that information. if not, then this article has little meaning and needs to be deleted and/or split to each unincorporated area or merged to an article covering them all. The article as it stood when i read it doesn't mean anything. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference notes the aggregation with the statement, "Alyangula and Nhulunbuy townships both come under a Special Purpose Lease, East Arm is on Darwin Rates Act Area land, Finniss-Mary is part of Unincorporated Top End Region and Yulara township is currently owned by private interests." Shevonsilva (talk) 00:32, 22 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaali Sudheer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just co-produced two movies and subject doesn't claims notability. Articles seems like promotional too , Fails WP:BIO. AD ^Talk 16:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Repeatedly recreated. The first AfD ended in deletion, and noted that there were other deleted pages that were related. I also just AfD the associated gallery: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse Art Gallery (2nd nomination)--Theredproject (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt +Sudheer Mopperthy. Film producers do not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just for being producers. They get Wikipedia articles when they're the subject of reliable source coverage which verifies passage of a specific notability criterion, namely WP:CREATIVE — they do not get an automatic notability pass just because they exist. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:16, 18 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish people in Iran[edit]

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

This is essentially a list of two people who are Turkish and live in Iran. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:article is created based on OR but I am going to suggest to create article titled list of Turkish people in Iran.Hispring (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Ill-defined WP topic; how do we know these two people are even still in Iran? Do we get to "Notable Turkish people who have ever lived in Iran"? Britishfinance (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the existing reference doesn't run and it requires related sources; with these explanation, it might be regarded as an interesting/appropriate article -- in the case of having sufficient sources/texts. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I used IABOT to fix the broken reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 24 February 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 high participation and rather pronounced trend towards deletion over the last several days of this discussion indicate that relisting is not needed to determine consensus as it now clearly appears. bd2412 T 01:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States support for ISIS[edit]

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

WP:TNT per rather poor sourcing (RT, Sputnik, Mint press, Iran state media) coupled with a side of WP:SYNTH (e.g. the US allowing an ISIS retreat from Raqqa prior to pushing into the city and conquering it from ISIS) - sourced to BBC. More importantly, the is a WP:POVFORK of American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War, American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, International military intervention against ISIL - we don't need a separate article detailing allegations of support (contra the mainstream view of a US-ISIS conflict) - if this material is due for inclusion (doubtful) - it should be on the main article(s). Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allegations of state support is the sub-section this set of allegations of a POVFORK of in the ISIL page.Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International military intervention against ISIL. Arguably there is enough independent RS coverage to ring the WP:N bell for this topic. But just because something is notable doesn't automatically mean it deserves its own stand alone article. In this case it doesn't. Merge the stuff that is reliably sourced and leave the fringe crap out unless it is backed by solid RS secondary sources. RT and Sputnik are not RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's very little here that is salvageable. What is reliably sourced - is already there. Some of supposedly reliably sourced stuff - e.g. "Russia and some Afghan local officials have claimed that US has supplied arms to ISIS fighters in Afghanistan" sourced to this omits the rather significant "There's no evidence to support the allegations, but they are another prime example of Russia's active information warfare campaign against the US.". Icewhiz (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem:and leave the fringe crap out unless it is backed by solid RS secondary sources. RT and Sputnik are not RS. This is not the place discuss about that, FYI. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of sources is always an appropriate topic in AfD discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Apologies, gave out the wrong signal. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Keep or Merge - I don't see it as a POVFORK. ISIS and ISIL are not the same. ~~The title is quite frankly, misleading and could be changed.~~ But this is pretty significant considering the current affairs and should have separate article. This is a sensitive topic and problems with NPOV and COI are likely to arise. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. Could be moved to userspace but this needs much publicity and attention to readers and other editors. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS and ISIL are not the same. Our own article on the group would seem to disagree. Novusuna ^talk 20:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any good sources that aren't already used in the main articles on the conflict should be incorporated into those articles, but we don't need a separate article pushing a point of view contrary to the main articles; that's the definition of a WP:POVFORK. Novusuna ^talk 21:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International military intervention against ISIL and this are not POVFORK. They are two separate POV. If necessary they could be merged with a different title. And ISIS/ISIL has become much bigger than Iraq and Syrian war, and spread internationally. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard - you have just defined a POVFORK. We do not need multiple US/ISIS relationship articles each covering the issue from a separate POV - our goal should one article, weighing different POVs per due weight as reflected in RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes technically, depending on how you look at it. In that case both are POVFORK to one another. I would copy relevant content from here and merge. A neutral title should be created for that. Because of this bureaucracy, I would rather keep it and then consider a merge. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. As Wizard and Ad Orientem said, article included some well sourced material. I agree we need more Rs and I am going to find to more RS. But I am really against to merge article into International military intervention against ISIL. It is obvious that US position about ISIL is changing. I want to suggest to alter title to Us-ISIL relation included two position, support for some day and vice versa or alleged United States support for ISIS.Saff V. (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and it doesn't appear any reliable source uses the terminology used in this article title ("support"). As said above, what's backed up by reliable sources is already included in other related articles. Leviv ich 08:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich:,@Novusuna:,@Icewhiz: such RS, bloomberg,nbc, BCC, aljazeera and [10] lead me to chose "support" for title.It would be great to tell about your suggestion for title based on mentioned sources. Saff V. (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those support "support". BBC for instance covers the US decision to allow an ISIS convery to flee Raqqa - as part of the US-led assault and takeover of Raqqa - this is a common stratagem to avoid a costly fight to the death. If this constituted support, then we could create (not - POVFORK) Syrian regime support of Syrian rebels based on the many (dozens at least) convoys allowed to leave (usually to Idlib) throughout the war - Reuters). Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about alleged support?Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian and Iranian allegations of US support to ISIS? Might be a notable study of fake news - buts seems better covered in Propaganda in the Russian Federation and Propaganda in Iran). Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't stress on to create article by fringe sources, as I noticed above such RS bloomberg confirmed US has supported ISIS Or a former US top military intelligence director, General Mike Flynn confirmed it, but i am not against to re-title. If your suggested subject is verified by RS, why not to create. Any way I will respect to result of AFD.Saff V. (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: This discussion is regarding notability, not the content. Allegations and propaganda are not necessarily fake news. Even if they turn out to be, they should be mentioned. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is actually not about notability. The nom is on WP:POVFORK grounds (with a side of WP:TNT) - we have existing articles covering ISIS/US relations - and this article is a POVFORK of said articles - WP:DEL5 (and WP:DEL6/WP:DEL14 in regards to TNT). Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with TNT because the content is quite significant. For DEL5, a redirect is possible, for DEL6 and DEL14, I would argue it is notable hoax at the very least. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename There are a lot of sources that make this article notable particularly about the US. The US regime has been accused many times of supporting ISIL directly or indirectly with arms and weapons. However, The US has dismissed these claims by saying that the US weapons were transferred to ISIL by "mistakes". Would be more NPOV to put "allegedly" in the title since they US never admitted of doing these mistakes intentionally. Also there are a lot of sources that claim the US has been moving ISIL members to safe places I don't know whether the US has commented on these allegations or not. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the topic itself is fine, but the contents are a load of contextless sentences, claims, and synthesis. And the main section makes no distinction between real support and inadvertent or accidental support. Also there is nothing given for the US's side of things, no content is given in the article about the US government trying to defend themselves, quotes, statements, nothing. A good first step for restructuring the article would be to have a section dedicated to "Claims", statements saying the US supports ISIS, including Donald Trump's and the Ayatollah's. And definitely rename the article "Alleged US support of ISIS". Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 13:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allegations of state support. I've been thinking it over and the entire article boils down to Iranian and Russian claims that the US directly supported ISIS, and then other claims that US incompetence lead to ISIS's growth. This can be summarized in like two paragraphs and added to the "Allegations of state support" section of the main ISIS article. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 11:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep and rename: I think the title merits having a stand alone article per the above/used sources. As for the title, I think it needs to be discussed elsewhere as to whether or not "alleged" should be used or not. That said, I found Brightgalrs's comment fair enough. Keep does not mean the article is good at the moment. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the second and though after searching more, I the title needs to change so that it shows there are some allegations. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SharabSalam 110.74.199.28 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this article is redirected, it seems to me the best place to redirect it to is the United States section of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allegations of state support. Leviv ich 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Per ImmortalWizard. In addition merging to nominated article make it too long so it isnot usefule alternative. I agree with renaming based on reliable sources.Hispring (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:To clarify the issues, I collected several sources addressed the subject:

The U.S. watched Islamic State fighters, vehicles and heavy equipment gather on the outskirts of Ramadi...by bloomberg
Flynn (National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump) said that conditions in US-controlled Iraqi prisons resulted in radicalization of thousands of young Iraqis, some of whom would later become some of the top ISIS commanders...by Aljazeera
Rand Paul, junior U.S. Senator from Kentucky, said that the U.S. government of indirectly supporting ISIL in the Syrian Civil War... by The Hill
The founder of ISIS has been introduced American political figures such as Obama or Hillary Clinton ... by CNN AND foxnews
According to the Russian Defence Ministry, the US has deliberately slowed the pace of its assault on Isis... by independent
US and Saudi Arabia arms significantly enhanced Isis’ military capabilities.... by another report of independent
ISIS weapons arsenal included some purchased by U.S. government... by NBC
Russia accuses U.S. of training former Islamic State fighters in Syria... by reuters
ISIL weapons traced to US and Saudi Arabia...by another report of aljazeera
allowed hundreds of ISIS fighters including their most notorious members to secretly evacuate city of Raqqa ... BY BBC Saff V. (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. This Bloomberg article says the US "left the fighting to Iraqi troops, who ultimately abandoned their positions...the U.S.-led coalition provided both airstrikes and surveillance to the Iraqi Security Forces in support of the Ramadi defense...The current rules of engagement are intentionally designed to restrict the effectiveness of air power to prevent potential collateral damage...That results in ISIS getting the freedom of action so they can commit genocide against civilians...the rules of engagement for U.S. airstrikes were not the only setback in the battle for Ramadi. The Iraqi military withdrew from its positions in the city..."
2. Flynn nowhere in this interview says anything about the US supporting ISIS.
3. "ISIS, an al Qaeda offshoot, has been collaborating with the Syrian rebels whom the Obama administration has been arming in their efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Paul explained" is not suggesting that the US supports ISIS. Saying "a friend of a friend" isn't the same thing as saying "a friend".
4. Trump said Obama founded ISIS by leaving Iraq. He didn't say the US supports ISIS. This campaign hyperbole is not taken as a serious accusation by anyone, especially since ISIS was founded in 2003, five years before Obama was elected.
5. According to the Russians...
6. This is about a report that found "...most weapons in Isis’ arsenal were captured from the Syrian and Iraqi armies...90 per cent of the weapons and ammunition overall were made in Russia, China and Eastern Europe..."
7. This is about the same report, but note: "...the U.S. government has supplied weapons to Syrian armed groups, first to fight the Assad regime and then to assist the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the fight against the Islamic State. Some of ISIS’ weapons are also thought to have been pilfered from military stockpiles while others were purchased illicitly...In propaganda videos, ISIS frequently showcases the U.S.-made weapons in its arsenal, much of it presumed to have been seized from Iraqi military stockpiles...But in reality, American weapons make up only a minor portion of the small arms documented by CAR. Chinese and Russian arms account for more than 50 percent, with the ubiquitous AK-47 in heavy use. CAR found most of ISIS' weapons were made before 1990, the year Iraq came under an arms embargo."
8. "The chief of the Russian General Staff has accused the United States of training former Islamic State fighters in Syria to try to destabilize the country."
9. Same CAR report: "The research said most weapons were looted from the Iraqi and Syrian armies, however, some were originally supplied by other nations involved in the conflict to Syrian opposition groups fighting against President Bashar al-Assad...About 90 percent of weapons and ammunition used by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) originated in China, Russia, and Eastern Europe, with Russian-made weapons outnumbering those of any other country."
10. The deal to let IS fighters escape from Raqqa – de facto capital of their self-declared caliphate – had been arranged by local officials. It came after four months of fighting that left the city obliterated and almost devoid of people. It would spare lives and bring fighting to an end. The lives of the Arab, Kurdish and other fighters opposing IS would be spared. But it also enabled many hundreds of IS fighters to escape from the city. At the time, neither the US and British-led coalition, nor the SDF, which it backs, wanted to admit their part.
None of these suggest the US supports ISIS in any way. Leviv ich 06:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But by these RS it is undeniable to accuses US. we can't disregard.Saff V. (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reliable sources don’t actually accuse the US of anything (except perhaps incompetence). It is only the Russians and Iranians (and apparently you) who link these disparate events together under the banner of “support”. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian and Iranian media have made allegations. Yes. But this is common in conflict - all sorts of allegations are made on the opposing side(s). We already cover the multitude of allegations of state support (basically - everyone accuses everyone else) in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allegations of state support - we don't need a WP:POVFORK for this specific set of allegations (which are made by sources generally considered to be highly unreliable - to the point they are seen as the information warfare arm of the states operating them). Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a glance illustrates article is based on US press and non Iranian or Russian! your opinion lead me to re title article. I am sure you believe in some material of article are supported by RS and we have to merge, but suggested articles are too long and after a while we have to split them. why don't we select best title for the new main article that include material belong to US-ISIS relation?Saff V. (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anything, this belongs to the page Russian propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: while article is based on American RS, Why it could be Russian propaganda?Saff V. (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some American/British RSes don't support "support" (e.g. the convoy allowed to flee Raqqa after a long battle and prior to the final American takeover). Other American sources - e.g. "Russia and some Afghan local officials have claimed that US has supplied arms to ISIS fighters in Afghanistan" sourced to this covers Russian claims - and omits the rather significant "There's no evidence to support the allegations, but they are another prime example of Russia's active information warfare campaign against the US.". Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above comment. Belongs on Sputnik. Sick. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan the Plumber: do you ignore 10 RS be listed above? they reveal US accusation to support ISIS.Saff V. (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Besides the outright unreliable sources, there are serious NOR issues. What material is taken from reliable ones is cherry-picked and COATRACKed together to present a narrative and conclusion none of the reliable sources put forth themselves. It is one big WP:SYNTH violation. Bits and pieces might merit inclusion in other articles, but not strung together as they are here. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The content that is from unreliable resources should be ignored in this debate (they should be removed of course, unless they could be proven by other RS). Based on the rest of the content, the article should me deleted, kept or merged, depending on NPOV (UNDUEWEIGHT) and FORK. So far, the mergings suggested to are ISIL#Allegations of state support, International military intervention against ISIL and Russian propaganda (I might miss something). I think the article can stand on its own. However, if it is going to be merged, it should be done to each of the suggestions depending on what's relevant. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:SYNTH problems and WP:OR problems, as well. Kierzek (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally agree with Mhhossein. 194.44.246.83 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one of the reliable sources cited indicate that "United States support for ISIS" is a topic that has received legitimate coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV Fork, many unreliable sources, and the reliable sources there are do not support the statements they are being used to substantiate. Any truly RS material could be added to the respective articles they concern.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to be presented above, It is interesting to review these RS:

the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of Islamic state ... by the guardian
by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, which uncannily predicts the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida- controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq ... by the guardian
These included a powerful anti-tank missile launcher bought from a Bulgarian manufacturer by the U.S. Army and wielded by ISIS only weeks later ... by newsweek
The state senator referred to plans by the CIA to transfer arms ... supplying all rebels, including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda. We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly ... by presstv
Over the years, growing jihadi influence compelled the U.S. to cut CIA support for such groups... by newsweek Saff V. (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, commentisfree is the opinion section of the Guardian, and thus is not a RS for statements of fact, only the opinions of the authors. The Newsweek source does not at all indicate support by the U.S. The sentence immediately before what you quoted says "weapons believed to have been procured by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, shipped to Syrian rebels and later obtained by ISIS" and earlier in the article "Supplies of materiel into the Syrian conflict from foreign parties—notably the United States and Saudi Arabia—have indirectly allowed IS to obtain substantial quantities of anti-armor ammunition....the U.S. had been supplying arms to insurgents opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since at least 2012 and, when ISIS began rapidly seizing territory in 2013 and 2014, many U.S.-armed rebel groups were either defeated by the incoming militants or joined them." This is not even an allegation of support, it is explaining how weapons meant for anti-Assad rebels wound up in IS hands. There is no claim that the U.S. intentionally supplied IS with material support. To say so is a misrepresentation of the source. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really we don't gather here to review sources line by line,in this case I would to notice to the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) got its hands on vast supplies of weapons by taking advantage of U.S. from newsweek, or about weapons and army equipment look at bloomberg, nbcnews, aljazeera. My offer still stands, we can based on suggested sources re title article to allegation at least but not to delete.Saff V. (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian commentisfree section sometimes runs letters from readers - however in this case it ran Corbyn's aide's op-ed - who has a rather particular set of opinions regarding Russia and Syria - see Seumas Milne#On Putin and Russia - definitely not a RS. US weapons (as well as the many more Russian weapons) showing up in ISIS's hands has little to do with support - ISIS pilfered most of these from rival groups, and bought some on the black market - as made clear in the sources cited above. Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your idea about The state senator referred to plans by the CIA to transfer arms ... supplying all rebels, including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda. We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly? Saff V. (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or the U.S. continued to train and equip Syrian rebels, using local allies like Jordan and Turkey as intermediaries. In its report, Conflict Armaments Group included dozens of photographs of EU-manufactured weapons believed to have been procured by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, shipped to Syrian rebels and later obtained by ISIS, which moved them between Iraq and Syria as well as Over the years, growing jihadi influence compelled the U.S. to cut CIA support for such groups'? Saff V. (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Newsweek reporting on Conflict Armament Research report does not support "support" (it merely supports the well known factoid that ISIS pilfered arms also from the FSA (which at times was very-very weak - with forces crossing the border dissipating shortly thereafter)). As for Press TV - well - it is Press TV for starters, and the interviewee is Virginia State Senator Dick Black (politician). State senators are not privy to federal matters and in particularly not to foreign affairs. Black is also noted for Dick Black (politician)#Russia Today appearances. I can't quite see how Black would merit inclusion on any Syria related article. Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I reverted some of these additions to the article (see my edit summary for reasoning), and posted about the PressTV one at WP:RSN#PressTV. Leviv ich 18:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per much of the above, especially Lev's point-by-point rebuttal to Saff, whose case as presented reminded me of a typical political entertainment television "investigation", usually (and in this case) by the right. Mis-characterization of sources, lack of perspective or proportion, outright lies, stretching to ascribe illogical motives when common sense dictates otherwise, even the provocative title "United States support for ISIS" (implying intent), etc. – it's all there. I'll go to the political entertainment media for that sort of self-abuse if I want to feel like leaving the planet. It doesn't belong here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments above. Looks like a POV haven to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't read this article but I support United States intervention against ISIL (as a WP:SPINOFF article). wumbolo ^^^ 22:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alleged formal (overt or covert) US support for, or private-sector American channels of aid to, or US-originating resources used by ISIL (which are not the same or even related claims and do not all constitute a fused thing that could logically be called "US support", a concept intended to mislead and to push both an anti-American viewpoint and what amounts to a conspiracy theory) can be discussed at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for inclusion in saner form, to the extent it can be properly sourced, stripped of blatant WP:SYNTH, and is actually within WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE boundaries. The "article" under discussion is basically a massive persuasive definition and equivocation fallacy, manufactured around manipulating radically different ways to interpret the string "United States support". PS: I'm not sure why people are proposing a "US intervention against ISIL" page in response to an AfD about the opposite idea. I have no in-theory objection to such an article existing, but it's off-topic for this discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are several RS that accuse US to support (at least), please consider The state senator (Richard Hayden Black) mentioned to plan for transferring CIA arms thought some countries in order to supply all rebels, "including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda." he declared "We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly". I believe in some drawbacks of article as well as I think that solution would be re title article to US allegation in .... rather than delete! Saff V. (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Black is a state senator not a US senator, he is not credible, his views are seen as fringe theories.Dkspartan1835 (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And PressTV is hardly reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a case of WP:SYNTH. feminist (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or failing that, redirect or merge anything Reliable and legitimate. Severe problems with unreliable sources, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and misrepresentations. RT is utterly unreliable, and the Iranian source aren't much better. It's absurd to suggest that hardware stolen or diverted to ISIS by third parties constitutes support. It's absurd to suggest that Trump's wacky quote about "Obama founded Isis" belongs in here. It's absurd to suggest two instances of the US not attacking constitutes "support" - especially when at least one was a tactical decision to protect civilian lives. It's absurd to suggest that prisons being a metaphorical "training ground" constitutes support. And I was particularly unimpressed when Iranian PressTV cited a rant by someone who is basically an elected dogcatcher in Virginia, as if that accurately represents or reflects US foreign policy. This isn't even a WP:POVFORK, because a POVFORK would actually require proper sourcing to support the alternate POV. In this case the only POV being presented are things being falsely represented as "support" along with a dash of routine RT-fiction. There's a damn good reason we don't cite RT for anything but Russia's official position and (occasionally) for basic uncontroversial facts. Alsee (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be any evidence for actual US support of ISIS in reliable sources. Perhaps the accusations themselves are worth including, but not in an article as misleading as this. Maybe if there were an article "United States-ISIS relations", it could describe the whole relationship and give these accusations of support their proper context. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be salvaged from reliable sources (which isn't that much) into International military intervention against ISIL. Beyond that, this is a POV/conspiracy-leaning fork. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is a POV fork Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, or move to a more NPOV title (one that contains the word "alleged"). But, even then, the article will need some serious trimming to clear out the WP:OR, like the entire Raqqa and Ramadi section for instance. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:14, 24 February 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 speedy Delete. g4'd by TNT. (non-admin closure) Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shumann Rudolf[edit]

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

Continually removed g4 by creator and evading title protection see: Rudolf Schumann, however just like the last time, still not notable and it's an attempt to inflate notability yet again. No coverage, no actual notable awards, fails GNG and pretty much any other N. See prior AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf Schumann. Previous titles: Rudolf Schumann, Rudolf Schumann (composer), Praxidicae (talk) 14:48, 17 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Williams[edit]

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

Undistinguished American football player and coach. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate an actual professional football career and haven't been able to unearth any coverage from his college play or any other articles that would surpass WP:GNG. Cannot find a measure where the subject would pass notability. Would change my mind if it were presented, others might have better research--but based on the article contents and what I can find in my own searches there's nothing of any impact.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough notability on this guy, which is a violation of notibility guidelines. Most of what I saw has been stated well by Paul. James-the-Charizard (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He was the starting QB of the 2012 Akron Zips football team, a Mid-American Conference team that went 0–8 in MAC play and finished in last place. While he received some borderline significant coverage in the Akron Beacon Journal (e.g., here and here/here), even these articles are not focused on Williams. Not finding the type of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources needed to push him over the GNG hurdle. Cbl62 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 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 FC Podillya Khmelnytskyi#Stadium. Fenix down (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Complex Podillya[edit]

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

This article has been orphaned long enough. This article doesn't cite any sources and has very small amount of information. This article also doesn't has any sections. I think deleting this would be a better idea as was created very long ago and not improved.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 12:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Orphaned? A number of pages link to it, I see a number of possible Ukrainian-language sources, and the Ukrainian page has a lot of information. SportingFlyer T·C 08:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was this English article has lack of words and information, only in the lead and external links. Only a very few editors have tried to improve it. Regardless what Ukrainian page has, it is still not like a article. Please try to improve it or delete it.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - cannot see any independent notability. Giant Snowman 14:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to FC Podillya Khmelnytskyi. Govvy (talk) 00:32, 19 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Cornbleet[edit]

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

non-notable cookbook author. article has been tagged for references since 2010. valereee (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anyone can find more coverage of her or her books. I found one review of her 2005 book, in an Associated Press cookbook review column that was published in many papers - but that is the only review I could find. Apart from that, there were a couple of mentions of the 'don't bother' type. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note SPA creation of this and related articles by User talk:Ekelly7 and User talk:Edeubel valereee (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 19:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as well as WP:GNG. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Secondary sources are notably lacking and don't seem to be available. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG and found nothing reliable sources.Hninthuzar (talk) 12:33, 24 February 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They Call Him Sasquatch[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 11:44, 17 February 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK criterion 1: nominator is advocating deletion in place of a WP:MERGE. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2019 Pulwama attack[edit]

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

Unneeded spin-off from the main article (2019 Pulwama attack), don't see any reason for a separate article for now. Gotitbro (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Reactions section was larger than the article. The real solution is to stop making long Reactions sections, and to stop abusing flagicons by putting them in Reactions sections. Abductive (reasoning) 10:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know "reaction" articles have been created for only highly covered international events and I don't see this being the case right now (WP:TOOSOON). The article is about an ongoing event some discrepancies are going to be there such as the reaction being too long. I don't see the notability of a separate reaction article for now. Gotitbro (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly covered" Do you want me to cite tons of international news sources that covered this? 119.82.70.109 (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, Reactions to the September 11 attacks 119.82.70.109 (talk) 10:45, 17 February 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. Neither of the Keep !votes offered a WP:PAG based rational. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoka[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 19:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs improvement but can be kept with very little work. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 19:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll add newspapers articles as referencies as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solonese (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reworked some of the prose to make it less promotional. All that might need to be done is to add more information with respective sources. –eggofreason^talk 20:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing is poor and unreliable. Fails WP:GNG, with a possible additional touch of WP:TOOSOON. The one piece that looks like it is actual journalism - the Gigabit Magazine piece, albeit quite fawning, doesn't even mention Spoka.[[11]] I Googled various combinations of Arkadin, Cisco and NTT with the name Spoka, and nothing comes up. While hunting, it appears that Spoka is a relatively new product owned by Arkadin, so I tried to see if Arkadin was notable, perhaps for a merge, and there's no coverage of them either. Cisco is listed as a partner on the Spoka site, but it appears they are just selling their equipment to them. I'm not sure how NTT fits in - they aren't mentioned anywhere, but the article's editor just went to the NTT Communications article (which is on my watchlist) and added info about this deal, perhaps hoping to influence notability with less OCD editors dropping in. The info added to NTT is just primary sources - the company's own press releases. On a related note, there are two other odd things here. A sock puppet investigation has been opened against the creator Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solonese, and the editor who nominated this article for deletion voted keep. Hopefully the tangential items will eventually get all sorted out, but for now, this is a clear delete. I'm also going to undo the NTT adds since the sourcing is primary and thus unreliable, and I'm not sure that this info should be there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I just saw this for more info about NTT and Arkada, so this must be what they're calling Spoka now. [[12]] But it's also too fawning to be taken seriously, so this is still a delete. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't there. There's one source that might cut the mustard (the Gigabit article [13]), although that also is more of an advertorial than anything else, and really just an incidental mention; and that's it. Fails WP:GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Spoka isn't mentioned at all in the Gigabit article used as a source. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:06, 19 February 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 Speedy Delete. G11-ed. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 11:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingman Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH due to a lack of in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. The article and source searching do not show that the company passes the relevant notability criteria. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's add more sources to improve the article, not delete. A quick search will reveal this is one of the world's largest paintball manufacturers, with extensive coverage. Skirts⁸⁹ 20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skirts89: Voting without sources are useless so can you please provide some soruces to support your claim? GSS (talk|c|em) 03:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-G11. NOTPROMO. ∯WBG^converse 08:23, 18 February 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 speedy keep, disruptive nomination that presents no remotely plausible or policy-based grounds for deletion of article on this obviously notable topic. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hentai[edit]

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

Inappropriate pictures of freaking course guys here comes dat boi (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a valid argument for deletion, or should we just close this now? --Michig (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Invalid nomination, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and the topic is quite obviously notable. Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Icewhiz - no valid grounds for deletion have been presented. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nom may be related to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cow cleaner 5000; this should be closed post-haste; no hope for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 18:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Opencooper (talk) 22:26, 17 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Chang[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERIT; The article was created by an undisclosed paid editor and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and there is no evidence to support his independent notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have also nominated Kingman Group for deletion which has even less claim to notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Arthur Chang is very clearly notable, founder of Kingman Group, Spyder Paintball, Kingman Training, Raven USA and Java Gear. Produced three movies (two have wiki pages) under his own banner Kingman Films International. Looks like nominator doesn't have an idea if there are not enough sources still a person can be notable. 157.47.139.29 (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — 157.47.139.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Did nom look for more sources before nominating this as AfD? From my searches, Chang passes WP:GNG at least and several other notability criteria as well. Skirts⁸⁹ 20:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skirts89: Voting without sources are useless so can you please provide some soruces to support your claim? GSS (talk|c|em) 03:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the onus is on the nominator to search for sources before going the AfD route. Let's build some consensus on this and use the appropriate process. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination happend after my WP:BEFORE search and being a responsible participant you need to provide some reliable sources to support your claim above. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that (per their contribution history [14] and per a concern raised at User_talk:Skirts89#Please) that Skirts89 was voting in one AfD per minute in the time before and after joining this discussion. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seem to be a non-notable businessman/producer. The subject has not accrued the necessary level of coverage in reliable, in-depth, independent sources required to meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO; noting that passing mentions in relation to companies or awards Arthur Chang was involved with do not confer undue notability on Chang per WP:NOTINHERITED.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletre - very much a run of the mill business person. Film producers are so common that their articles are almost always deleted at AfD. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and procedural close - Agree with SamHolt6, his business could be notable but Chang is not at the moment. To establish notability, required sources are definitely not there at the moment. Delete and close AFD.157.47.219.95 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 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 speedy deleted under CSD A7 and salted for one year.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan S[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chandan Saxena

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable person. He made his debut as music directors for the film Bhaiyaji Superhit , which was never released. WP:NMUSIC Fails. This article is cited by IMDb and some Original Research sources. No news found on Google. Also founded copyvio issues [15]. Xain36 (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete per A7 and G5 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashi Yadav and salt. I tagged the article for speedily deleted under G4 but notice that all previous AfDs were speedy closed, so I have taken it down. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:41, 18 February 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. Michig (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Johnson (American football)[edit]

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

Lacks presumed notability and fails the google test. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Google" isn't the measure of notability, especially for college football coaches active in the 1950s and 1960s. Head coaches of college football programs are almost always considered notable and I see no reason to make an exception here. Logic at WP:CFBCOACH applies. Certainly could use some "beefing up" but that's editing, not deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage of subject at Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could this article use an overhaul of good info? Yes. Should we delete it? Absolutely not. He is notable in being a college coach (Even if the article has not much info) and keeping with what Jweiss11 said, there is coverage on the internet of him. (Feels like this could end in a landslide keep.) James-the-Charizard (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jweiss11. WP:TROUT to the nominator for a total lack of WP:BEFORE, and for thinking that "the google test" was in any way sufficient for a subject that was born in 1921, died in 1985, and last active in their field in 1962. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:00, 23 February 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) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John King (lord of the manor)[edit]

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

Notability concerns for this 18th century biography. The two references appear to be primary sources - lists of graduates of a school and geneology information. No claim of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable clergyman with no significant accomplishments. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It might conceivably be worth having an article on West Hall, Folke, into which some of the content might eb repurposed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a separate article on West Hall, Folke is an excellent idea. However, in line with my original intentions, I have now added some of the additional biographical information to the John King article which I propose supports a claim of importance and significance. Fuseemusee (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---one of the sources, " Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset" was not linked to from Google Books. I added the link. It contains detailed biographical information, making it a third-party source. Along with Charles William Dale, that makes two third party, non-directory sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Notes and Queries source is certainly not substantive. This section is simply a look into the town's ancestry records and it isn't even definitive about who they're talking about! "who may have been the John King...", "It was probably a son of this John King..." This book is an annals of births, deaths, marriages, baptisms, and pedigrees of the local register, simply describing King's personal milestones, not something that establishes notability. The other linked source is also a trivial list of people. I don't know how big Glanvilles Wootton would have been back then, but being rector for a town of 200 people is not a notable position. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a clergyman and buying a property (which is all the elaborately portrayed 'Lord of the Manor' really entails) are insufficient to engender notability, nor are being an alumnus of a school or appearing in church registers. Agricolae (talk) 17:08, 23 February 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) 00:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nandu Jayakumar[edit]

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

Notability concerns. None of the 18 references are secondary sources; the interview at KDNuggets is the only one that's independent of him. His patents and press releases about speaking at conferences do nothing to establish notability power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability guides at WP:ANYBIO. I find absolutely zero good references. Ifnord (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Subject is not notable at all. Fails WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 20:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is also a draft at Draft:Nandu Jayakumar. This discussion should also address the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article but Keep the draft. The subject is not notable, but the draft does not need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know I'm responsible for putting this article up, so I thought I'd add some thoughts here. Person was jointly responsible for implementing Yahoo! Search capabilities. According to Wikipedia, Yahoo! Search is 2nd most used search engine. Without this person's contributions to their algorithm and tracking abilities, their search engine would not be where it is today. I also agree that a lot of the references seem not to be secondary sources, but as is the case on many occasions where you have a very tight, specialised field of scientific or academic nature, you will normally only find self-authored academic papers, or conference keynotes and presentations often done by the authors themselves. If the article is kept, then it will be significantly improved, especially the language as it does need to be tidied up a bit. Some of the Stanford articles seem independent upon 2nd look. Busy adding secondary sources. Equine-man (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are hundreds, if not thousands of people jointly responsible for implementing Yahoo! Search capabilities. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I get where you are coming from. Perhaps I should have said "significant contribution" instead. And another 3rd party source has been added already, and more are being sourced as well. Equine-man (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - User:Equine-man - Can the article be written to quote independent reliable sources to describe his role in implementation of the Yahoo search engine? If the article can speak for itself in that way with independent reliable sources, the subject is notable. If not, maybe the subject is not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another KDNuggets link. Also there are multi-year Strata Data Conference proceedings already cited acclaiming subjects involvement with Yahoo. All peer-reviewed congress proceedings. Relevant in an narrow academic field? It's not really a topic found published in more mainstream publications. Equine-man (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does the proponent have a connection with the subject of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, never met or know him. No COI involved.

Comment I knew I had seen this somewhere before, which I was basing my reasoning on: WP:NACADEMIC

Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones. Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences, most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings Equine-man (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per any applicable policies/guidelines. A look at the creator's other new articles also make me suspect undisclosed paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As already commented above, no COI involved. I find articles, sometimes on foreign wiki’s and translate them for English wiki. Or I find things in subjects I am interested in, and check if the subject is on wiki if I think they should be on wiki. Equine-man (talk) 18:27, 24 February 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) 00:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metrication of British transport[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was created as a content fork from Metrication in the United Kingdom, but never succeeded in demonstrating that it was a notable subject in its own right. The original content comprised mainly of original research (OR) and synthesis. After the OR/synthesis was removed, the only significant content left is that about the UK implementation of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), which is new technology and unrelated to metrication, and could be merged into the ERTMS article, if it isn't already there. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment I find it hard to accept this nomination has been done in good faith given the history of the OP with the author of this article Martinvl. Both editors have received sanction for disruption on metrication related articles. I also note there has been a steady degradation of the article and as originally written contained a great deal of relevant and useful information. I have struck my original comment following discussion with the nominator. Nonetheless, I would still argue keep as this is a relevant fork, since information related to transportation and metrication does warrant it's own article IMHO. W C M_email 16:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: The article was bad from day 1. Detailed edit summaries explain the reasons for any removals I made, and there has been plenty of time since then to question them or add new content. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your updated comment, the specific forked topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Anything on transport can adequately be accommodated in the original article, Metrication in the United Kingdom. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the rationale for an article of this nature but on reflection, per Otr500, starting over from scratch may well be a better option. As such, withdrawn my keep comment. W C M_email 14:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand, I'd say delete, or redirect to Metrication in the United Kingdom per WP:EXTERNALROT.

The problem at the time I nominated this article to AFD before was that the topic did not meet WP:GNG. While there were lots of sources they were practically all primary sources (whereas WP:GNG in its definitions requires secondary sources). WP:PSTS is clear that we cannot interpret primary sources, but this article broke that rule in practically every sourced sentence.

So far as I can see none of the issues have been fundamentally resolved since then. The article still relies principally on primary sources and includes very few secondary sources. Recent efforts to remove the OR have also got rid of most of the content, and we have no way of replacing it in a policy-compliant way - because the article still fails WP:GNG.

IMO, the article is best reabsorbed into Metrication in the United Kingdom. Kahastok talk 21:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: There are definitely issues. I can see a fork to the transportation side (some agreement with User:Wee Curry Monster) but the article as written is a co-mingling of Metrication in the United Kingdom, European Rail Traffic Management System in Great Britain, and European Rail Traffic Management System without a clear direction. "Metrication in the United Kingdom" at least strikes a balance with the "Public opinion" section (controversy) and links to Road signs in the United Kingdom as well as Metrication opposition. This article title suggests something more specific, British as opposed to United Kingdom, yet the "Background" section uses "See also: Metrication in the United Kingdom", and I can't see a reason for the confusion. As written I also can't see an advantage of having this article and no clear way to fix it except blow it up and start over. Otr500 (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and previous comments. Otr500 (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Article been around for a long while now and still not escaped OR (and in a poor state). The "Background" is a redo of the main Metrication WP article. The "Road" is tiny (and captured in Metrication). The "Rail" is about "Pan-European signalling systems", which really forms the bulk of text in this article and is not per-se exclusively about Metrification. Situation unlikely to change and no evidence that this is a standalone topic from the main Metrication in the United Kingdom. At minimum a WP:NUKEIT, but I think this topic is also poorly formed, hence delete. Britishfinance (talk) 01:47, 17 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advit Foundation[edit]

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

Non notable NGO/Trust. Seems to have been made by someone close to the organisation. Apart from passing mentions in newspapers, there seems to be nothing else to impart notability Jupitus Smart 07:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree per nom. Fails WP:GNG and is purely promotional. Skirts89 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough reliable sources are found for the subject. Does not pass GNG.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator that this article is promotional and that the organisation does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:03, 18 February 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. czar 17:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic combustion chamber[edit]

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

Apparently a design or prototype that was never produced. Sources provided are all dead. Other refs found suggest this was a concept some years ago, but not that dynamic combustion chambers are in use. I don’t think this is notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails any notability. Totally unsourced (dead links) and a search resulted in one link for a Dynamic combustion chamber and the

Nautilus Four Stroke, Six Cycle, Dynamic Multiphasic Combustion Engine that is not even close. Otr500 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Note to closing admin, the page is duplicated at the userpage of the creator, Andrewshephard. SITH (talk) 04:22, 21 February 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. Discounting the votes by WP:SPAs, there is consensus that there is enough coverage of the topic to satisfy WP:GNG. While there were concerns raised about whether the article satisfied WP:NPOV, merely having the article does not present a violation (and offending content can be dealt with as usual) and thus doesn't warrant deletion. (non-admin closure) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Full rational added --DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal immigration to the United States and crime[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

This is a WP:POVFORK that was created when one editor, E.M.Gregory, wasn't allowed to insert individual crimes by undocumented immigrants into the Illegal immigration to the United States or create the category "Crimes committed by illegal immigrants"[16]. The sole reason why this FORK exists is to list individual crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. The editor has in the past recognized that the academic research disagrees with him[17], and the desire to highlight individual crimes by illegal immigrants seems intended to give the false impression that illegal immigrants are particularly crime-prone. Illegal immigration to the United States and Immigration and crime articles both cover the existing research on the relationship between illegal immigration and crime, and neither article struggles with size problems. There was nothing that justified created a third page specifically about the topic, besides WP:POVFORK. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: and anyone coming for the rfc at Talk will then see the tag on the article Markbassett (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. This is an obvious POV fork. We now have Immigration and crime in the United States, which is currently a redirect on another page -> here]. If anyone wants to create something about it, that might be Immigration and crime in the United States, not the illegal immigration. However, even that would be problematic because there is no such correlation, as described here, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) WP:POVFORK clearly met here. Anything here can already be covered more neutrally on the articles listed above. SportingFlyer T·C 03:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP (article creator) the new article takes precisely the same POV as our page on Illegal immigration to the United States, that social science research shows no relationship between illegal immigrants and criminality. It is not a POV fork. 2.) Our page on Illegal immigration to the United States is very long, making it necessary for many subtopics to be hatnoted to more detailed pages. 3.) Despite the fact that illegal status does not correlate with criminal activity, as a TOPIC Illegal immigration to the United States and crime is notable because of the political impact it has had, in the 2016 Presidential primary, in some legislative and local races, and during the Trump Presidency. The political conversation around this topic is significant, notable, and can certainly support a page. Simply, it is too large to be squeezed into Illegal immigration to the United States, and so, like other subheads on that page, I have begun an article. I will continue to expand this page later this week, but I do not OWN it, and welcome the participation of other editors. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, I can see your argument. For example, we have page Race and intelligence simply because that has been a matter of extensive debate. Nevertheless, I would rather use page Immigration and crime in the United States, not the "Illegal...", to keep this content. That would simply be more logical and convenient.My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is about crime (or the lack of) by immigrants, not about immigrant illegally. Two related but distinct topics. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, it is not about Illegal immigration (a legitimate subject). It is about the non-existent relation between illegal immigration and crime. Illegal immigrants are still immigrants. Therefore, no, it is a part of the same subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with My very best wishes, and I would add using the word illegal in the title immediately creates an article that will struggle with NPOV. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic has received tons of attention in both the scholarly literature and media (cursory googling finds: [18], [19], [20]; tons of academic research [21]). I don't see much value in listing every crime committed by some illegal alien (there will be 100s of such stories in media), but I see the value in listing very prominent cases (e.g. 3-10 cases), and discussing research findings. I see some concerning POV indicating comments about from other editors who take a stance on the relationship as being relevant for whether the page should exist or not. Seems to loosely conflict with WP:NOTTRUTH. Deleet (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Illegal immigration and crime is distinct from legal immigration and crime. The article for immigration and crime co-mingles data on legal immigration with illegal immigration. best to have an article solely dealing with illegal immigration.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we already have a legitimate page on this subject, and that is Immigration policy of Donald Trump. No need to promote myths ([22][23]) by creating POV forks. My very best wishes (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Except, of course, that this issue is at least as old as Special Order 40 and the 1979 Murder of Jamiel Shaw II.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not think this is a valid reason to keep that page, just as your edit [24]? My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Crime by legal immigrants is one thing; crime by illegal immigrants is an altogether different thing. An encyclopaedia ought not to mingle both subjects, which are quite separate. Consider for example, that we have an article on Narcotics and an entirely separate article on "Prohibition of drugs." No-one argues that the latter one ought to be deleted because the narcotics article already says that heroin, for example, is "totally prohibited." Likewise, the article "migration and crime" is simply too generic to adequately cover the WP:SIGCOV already present on "Illegal immigration to the United States and crime", which plenty meets and exceeds WP:GNG. Consider, for example, that I have just added a citation of a National Public Radio source whose title is "Trump, Illegal Immigration And Crime" - observe NPR thinks "illegal immigration and crime" is a stand-alone topic from, say, Immigration and crime. Let's go by the sources.
I'd also like to mention that the nomination is defective and tendentious. Its says this article was created "for the sole reason" to "list individual crimes committed by undocumented immigrants" (!!!). Are we still assuming good faith around here? I'll hasten to add that in no way the current article is "a list". On the contrary, it presents the research, body of law, politics of the issue, and, as is common in these cases, links a limited number of blue-linked examples of the issue being discussed. On these grounds alone, the nomination ought to be withdrawn. XavierItzm (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To "list individual crimes committed by undocumented immigrants"... But that is exactly what this user does [25]. This is wrong (scientifically and for other reasons), just as it would be wrong including lists of crimes committed by people depending on their race into page Race and crime... My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An inability to differentiate between "for the sole reason" (as in the nomination and as in this objection) and a subsection in an otherwise large article should be noted by third-party observers. XavierItzm (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly covered as a topic by multiple sources (as well as being a rather hot political football). This is not a POVFORK of Illegal immigration to the United States (which does not contain this depth on the crime issue) and neither of Immigration and crime (which is world wide and not specific to the US or to illegal immigrants). It seems a US president recently even declared a national emergency due to "The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics."[26] - so hard to argue this isn't a topic widely discussed as a stand alone topic. In as much as there are balance issues in the article - that's a content issue for the artice itself. Icewhiz (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not a POVFORK of Illegal immigration to the United States (which does not contain this depth on the crime issue)" - That's absolute nonsense, and I dare anyone to compare the article considered for deletion with the relevant section in Illegal immigration to the United States and state that the latter is has less depth than the former.[27] It is an absurd claim. Illegal immigration to the United States contains ten times as extensive and thorough content on the subject than this POVFORK that E.M. Gregory created because he was upset that Illegal immigration to the United States was not fringe enough. If there was a serious intent to actually cover the subject matter in a standalone article, then the content in this section[28] would have just been copy-pasted over. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic passes WP:GNG by a mile (won't bother listing the references here). Topic is currently "buried" in large generic WP articles, but it is not a POVFORK to create a standalone WP article. U.S. law is different from the law in other countries, and thus the definition of "crime" and of an "illegal immigrant" changes. There are also thousands of WP articles with sub-articles by geography.

At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, this is what WP does for society, take notable topics and present the quality consensus fact-base. A well written/community edited article on this topic will help combat the considerable amount of fake-news on this specific topic. Yes, it will be a battle-ground article and the page will need protection (and a trip to ArbCom) like many others; that is what WP does.

While the article looks decently written, I do have an issue with the table at the end. I have no problem listing "crimes that became notable (e.g. have a WP article) BECAUSE of the issue of illegal immigration". However, the current table lists "notable crimes that happened to be done by illegal immigrants", which is not appropriate (and is POV).

I also belileve that the article should discuss crimes "done to" illegal immigrants, as well as "done by", which is in keeping with title.

Britishfinance (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a standalone article on a subject that's extensively covered in Illegal immigration to the United States is needed, isn't the obvious solution then to simply copy-paste the section in that article[[29]] over to the article that's currently considered for deletion and build the rest of the article from there? As it stands, the article under consideration for deletion is a really poor version of the relevant section from Illegal immigration to the United States and seems intended to chiefly be about the grotesque crimes committed by individual illegal immigrants (the article creator has already edit-warred to keep that bizarre list in the new article - and has edit-warred on multiple other immigration-related articles to introduce similar content). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem with the "copy and paste". My concern is that this topic is definitely independently notable to have its own article. Agree that the current table is a problem and needs to be deleted or edited to be crimes that became notable BECAUSE of an illegal immigrant (either victim or perp.). If this article/topic gets through AfD, then it is going to need some ArbCom (or other), attention to clarify the ground rules, and consequences for those who ignore them. Britishfinance (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in list now on page is entirely composed of "crimes that became notable BECAUSE of an illegal immigrant (either victim or perp.)".E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I proposed precisely this solution to while I was in the process of creating this article [30], a proposal that I made in part because of User:Snooganssnoogans WP:OWN issues on page Illegal immigration to the United States. User:Snooganssnoogans replied [31] in an uncollegial manner. Note that Snooganssnoogans lacked the courtesy to notify page creator of this AfD. User:Snooganssnoogans WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWN and uncollegial style is on display not only in the tone of this AfD nomination, but the aggressive, POV tone and style of his page edits during this discussion{[32], [33], [34].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That said, we can certainly condense subhead Illegal immigration to the United States#Relationship between illegal immigration and crime, moving relevant material to this page, as I proposed doing 4 days ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as a dispassionate observer from across the pond). You guys should take a break from this for a few days. This article has not been written as a POV hit-piece, and both of your contributions are honestly motivated - and aside from the difference in opinion re having a standalone article - you both advocating good quality content.

If this gets through AfD, then the real crazies will arrive, which will need both your efforts to manage. We need to see an article bristling with highest quality research references/Tier 1 reporting. I would amend the title of the table (and content if necessary), as we can only really have one on crimes that became notable because the victim/perp was reported as illegal; anything else has to go. I would also split the research section (and maybe others) into "Crimes by Illegals" and "Crimes on Illegals", which would add to the WP:BALANCE on terms of respecting the title topic (which is what AfD is voting on). thanks, and look forward to reading in 6 months time when it has stabilised. Britishfinance (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Made some small structural edits to the article headings to reflect above (and simplify); hope it helped. Britishfinance (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This article has not been written as a POV hit-piece" - it cannot be ignored that a lot of the content that the article creator is filling the article with is content that was reverted and rejected on several other immigration-related articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as a high-risk, low-return POV content fork. While I understand that it may be useful to Wikipedia to have lightning rods to entrap racist editors, I don't think this subject is of encyclopedic merit any more than Jelly Donuts and Ant Eaters is; ie: you can put together tangentially connected concepts all you like, they don't become relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. This article already exists but is inside a larger general article. AfD votes that do not invoke WP policy will be ignored. You need to produce a WP policy reason as to why this article should be deleted. Britishfinance (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The poliies I'm invoking above are WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SOAP. This is an arbitrary assemblage of information intended to act as an editor's soapbox. That's grounds for deletion. I'm also invoking the essay which should be a policy everywhere on Wikipedia and off - WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. As we are a consensus-based organization, it's only by people saying, "we should adhere to this principle," that a principle is established. And I strongly contend that we should adhere to the principle of denying a platform to bigots and will continue saying so everywhere relevant until it becomes policy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a subject with substantial WP:SECONDARY coverage from reliable, independent sources, and is almost certainly of inherent interest. No question this will be a contentious article, but there are certainly enough examples to choose from to show that's not disqualifying. Whether or not the article currently suffers from WP:POV issue is a separate question; that's a problem best addressed through discussion and participation by the WP community, not deletion. The article needs work, but on its face, the topic meets WP:GNG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This AfD page is being canvassed. Comments by new users and IPs should be procedurally disregarded and striked. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Bold-faced POV fork with a highly misleading title. This article was created in pretty much the same vein to the now-deleted article Jews and Communism: by listing individual incidents/Jewish people to misleadingly paint a causation to criminality by illegal immigration/Communism. The article creator's trollish comments and the events leading to the creation of this article, as pointed by proposer, as well as EMG's previous efforts to insert false or deliberately misleading POV editorializations, makes their motive and edits highly problematic. Even if the POV fork issue could be rectified, the existence of this article and its misleading title will continue to make it a hotbed for POV pushing and other undesirable time-wasting disruptive editing. Overall, really not worth the effort for something that could be perfectly included and explained in the main article in its totality. We will not be a vehicle or complicit to racist dogwhistling. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this content is unacceptable. It is a POV Content Fork and shouldn't be tolerated at all. Wikipedia is not at all a ""indiscriminate collection of daily recordings"". Sources can be unreliable and not that much trustable. Statistics of the article is supported by the sayings of Donald Trump, whom we very well know, a racist by birth. If possible salt this article if any one creates it. About time really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashotoshan Sashikaran (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC) ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]
delete crazily enough::: we don't supply content which doesn't belong to encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.89.253.22 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC) ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]
Delete and Salt We do not allow the premises of editors to create a stupidly enough single slanting POV which is a obvious content fork. After failing to establish a article inclusion, Em sets out to create an other article. This is not allowed here is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramvir chalravoty (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC) ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.[reply]

Comment Obviously, we should not allow any article that makes some sort of racial insinuation or alleges an unproven connection without sources. However, from what I'm reading on this page, the majority of content affirms that there is not a positive correlation between undocumented immigration and crime. This seems essentially to be a spin-off article from what was previously a very long section under Illegal Immigration to the United States. I think the real question is whether there is actually enough independent content on this topic to justify a separate article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Delete - But, Trump has basically made the topic of Illegal Immigration and Crime notable, regardless of whether the linkage between the two is real or not. I think we could probably have an article, as long as we made it clear that the subject was the political propaganda of the 2016 campaign, and not an actual linkage between illegals and crime. Sorta like Uncle Sam. We all know he's not real, but he is notable. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is now mostly a Trumpism. But then it should simply be included to Political positions of Donald Trump. Or perhaps the title should be different, for example Immigration and crime in the United States (the "illegal" could be a part of such page). My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: - Those seem like reasonable solutions too. NickCT (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absurd solution. A politician's position on a topic is separate from the topic itself, whether or not they supposedly "made" the topic notable. Whatever the final result is, this should not be it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: - It's not such much that it was made notable, more than it was made up. For instance, if a politician told us winged flying sharks were a serious menace, and b/c of his warning there was a notable coversation about flying sharks, it would be hard to seperate the topic of "flying sharks" from the topic of the politician. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG, as it is a notable topic with many sources discussing it. It has been frequently discussed and is in the news -- and it has been discussed well before Trump becme president (Shooting of Kate Steinle, etc.). I reject the forking claim because this article is different in scope/depth from the "Illegal immigration to the United States" and "Immigration and crime" articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - seems GNG, prominent as separate topic in secondary press, political speech, and individual headline events do influence political directions and choices. It seems too much to insert into the overall Immigration articles, and that would seem too much prominence anyway. But work at keeping scope clear and being factual and NPOV showing all significant views in proportion to their prominence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this article supposed to document a list of crimes by illegal immigrants? - because that's what it seems like the intention. If that's the intention I really cannot support this because it would be very clearly against WP:NPOV. We have similar articles on correlates of crime such as Race and crime in the United States, but none adds any type of list. Instead they summarise information.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a legal classification: illegal alien. It is NOT about race. Illegal immigrants of every shade of the rainbow have committed notable crimes in the U.S.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if you believe that American positions on immigration and who they consider to be a legal person vs who they consider an illegal non-human isn't tied to race, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are about a statistical correlate of crime (in particular where the correlate is a characteristic of the perpetrator). So if we don't include lists in race and crime, there is no argument to be made for inclusion in illegal immigration and crime.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Related discussion at CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_24#Category:Crimes_committed_by_illegal_immigrants --DreamLinker (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of creating an article rather than a category was indeed suggested to me on that page.15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I think the unanimous deletion of Crimes_committed_by_illegal_immigrants category should be a good argument in favor of deleting also a list of Crimes_committed_by_illegal_immigrants or this page. Yes, this page is not the same as the list or the category. However, the page was apparently created to include the list, as should be clear from the RfC started by creator of the page [35]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT & WP:OTHERSTUFF are not valid arguments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP OP is no longer an accurate description of the article. It now lists statistics, not anecdotes. Since literally thousands of articles have been written about this topic in RS, and it's too complicated to adequately address as one small section of the illegal immigration article, it deserves its own article. Jwray (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YES, please keep this article. signed PE65000.

This is the second edit made by this editor in almost nine years (the first being to the article under consideration for deletion). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was about to vote for delete until I acknowledged that this has become a notable subject because of the discussions of political and social issues in the US in recent years. Article nevertheless appears informative. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:13, 23 February 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. I do not believe that relisting this AfD means that I qualify as WP:INVOLVED since, extending it to NACs, an [editor] who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved. Thanks, (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Perdomo[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Maybe just too soon. Quis separabit? 01:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR with at least two prominent roles in notable productions, namely Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (TV series) in main cast listed fourth, and Killed by My Debt as the leading actor, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON applies. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306's argument. WP:NACTOR would seem to be satisfied - There's been sufficient of the TV series for it to count - it doesn't have to have concluded before it qualifies. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even split.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:NACTOR, specifically per Atlantic306's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At minimum a technical pass of WP:NACTOR (significant roles in two films that have WP articles; thus notable), but also has some other decent RS, and career is still on a strong upward trajectory, so would be a bit churlish to apply a WP:TOOSOON angle in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two notable roles Spiderone 15:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in multiple other articles. Receives direct coverage, beyond mention, at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whats-on-tv-tuesday-may-29-8v528q0rf, https://deadline.com/2018/02/michelle-gomez-chance-perdomo-netflix-sabrina-the-teenage-witch-series-1202290637/ and https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/09/18/netflix-chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-lgbt-pansexual/ thus meets the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 22 February 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. Ultimately a rough consensus formed to delete this article. There was discussion of a redirect that gained some traction, but I consider it to be short of reaching consensus here. Nothing prevents an editor from boldly creating the redirect if desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly van der Veer[edit]

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

Article doesn’t cite any sources so that’s red flag number one. In trying to find sources... nothing validates any claim in this article and nothing written about her goes beyond a paragraph at most or the links are dead. My Dutch skills are primitive but I know what I read. Trillfendi (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can't build articles just on the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this article has a current issue of not using good sources but checking with google news it seems there are plenty of RS about the subject that could be used. In general if issues with an article can be improved, it shouldn't be deleted. Sources are primarily in Dutch though which may be why they aren't being used currently. Rab V (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I looked at the Dutch sources and they were of no value to a Wikipedia article. Trillfendi (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by no value to Wikipedia? I looked up some English info about a few of the publishers and they seemed fine to be used for RS. Rab V (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship gossip. Sexual escapades. A club appearance. It’s no coincidence that other language translation articles also have 0 sources, including the Dutch one. People may try to make notability out of “she was the trans woman on Big Brother 18 years ago” but there’s not even any significant coverage that goes into that. Appearance doesn’t equal notability. Trillfendi (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like the kind of content that comes from sources, including RS, that cover celebrities. Rab V (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, these “sources” are not reliable they are tabloids and still offer absolutely no verification of any statement in this article (hence why it remians unsourced). Trillfendi (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother (Dutch TV series)? Besides that she doesn't appear to have done much of note. The best English-language source I could find online was this, and while I can't say for the Dutch-language sources, if it's just "celebrity gossip" then I hardly think that makes for a credible claim of notability. For what it's worth I do have a print source from an English magazine, but I still don't think that's enough. PC78 (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirection is a good idea. Trillfendi (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete & redirect though. Is there any reason to keep non-notable BLP content? PC78 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was up to me it would just be delete. Trillfendi (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1 !vote for each of delete, keep, and redirect -> need more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to count my !vote as delete. I don't feel that the article or its edit history are worth preserving given the complete lack of reliable sources, though I do think that once deleted the page should be recreated as a valid redirect to Big Brother (Dutch season 3). PC78 (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete lack of independent sources. Add sourced content about her at Big_Brother_(Dutch_TV_series) yes, but nothing here is reliably sourced. Also, the actual content here speaks to her non-notability. " the most prominent transsexual person in the Netherlands who rose to fame after competing" in some TV show. Rose to fame? What fame?? "Competed" in a TV show? Didn't even win. Possibly she has a fan base. Sources? " revived her music career "? "appearing in over six television shows"? "established a website "? "Other ventures ... however, was not very successful at the box office." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 22 February 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Man of the Year (album)[edit]

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

The album fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. It didn't chart on any official chart and was not discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The contents of this article appear to contradict what is said elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is said to be the debut album by Dareysteel, but elsewhere in Wikipedia Unbreakable (which is also up as an article for deletion) is said to be Dareysteel's debut album.Vorbee (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep The album meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM . Rayoveto (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayoveto: What criterion of WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM does this article meet? You can't just say it meets WP:GNG and WP:NABLUM without proving your point. This album did not chart on any country's official chart and was not critically reviewed by any reliable publication. The Pulse Nigeria and Vanguard sources are about the album's release. This is not enough to satisfy stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:37, 23 February 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. This had previously been closed as no consensus. However as was pointed out to me, one of the two keeps appears to be invoking presumptive notability for secondary schools and I am discounting it. That leaves a fairly clear consensus to delete. I am reclosing this discussion to reflect that. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennings International School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a primary school. This type of institution needs significant coverage to show notability which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a secondary school, and I added references to the article -- not indepth, but enough to confirm that the school exists and that it offers courses in German. I am not sure whether the official name is Jennings International School or Jennings International College. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NSCHOOL. There is no more presumed notability for secondary schools as it was discussed on RfC, so it is bound by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and that is not present here. The references in the article are: primary, a listing, passing mention, passing mention, with my search consisting of listings of the school. It exists, but that is not enough. Even the Keep voter himself admits there isn't indepth coverage. Enough said. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it passes WP:NSCHOOL now that the extra sources are added. The Goethe Institute and The Sunday Times are both third party. I should also add that international schools are not that common.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see these sources as supporting the school's notability as in my opinion none of them display all the criteria needed. They are either not significant or not independent. The most promising source is probably the Goethe Institute, but the is not enough information to determine if that entry an independent assessment, or simply repeating information from the school's website. Even if reliable, it is only 1 source. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:52, 24 February 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Gunasekera[edit]

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

The References I’ve found don’t support the notability of the article’s subject. Mccapra (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Over a decade and still only one reference. The reason being that there is almost nothing about the subject on google, no article on the subject in any newspaper, independent book, even 2nd tier website. Unusual, as most media-BLPs will by defintion throw up "passing mentions" quickly. In this case, none. Britishfinance (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Britishfinance. Odd, I'd have thought a One O'Clock News presenter would be all over the place. Anyway, the only reliable source I can find is the one listed and that just proves she was on one TV show once, missing the mark on verification per WP:BLP and notability per WP:BIO. SITH (talk) 04:14, 21 February 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. No sourcing suggestive of notability emerged during the discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yao Si Ting[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND.

There were two sources on the page, but the second source was a "wiki" (last.fm wiki bio) (Yao Si Ting Biography) and the second source was almost a direct copy from the wiki ([36] - is a dead link, archive). I am sure that the wiki was copied (and not the other way round), as the wiki page was last edited in 2012 and the source was first archived in 2015. Also this source does not seem very reliable either.

Looking through Google only gives pages which have limited information, which only contain the names of the four albums she has produced, usually in a online shop format. This means that these sources are pretty much useless, as they support pretty much nothing. These sources also don't define notability. Also these sources nearly all the time are not independent (as they offer ways to buy, through them, her albums). She does not meet WP:BAND on any of the criteria, which underlines the problem with the lack of notability and sources. I have tried to look for other wiki pages for her from other language wikipedias (for sources I could not find), but could not find any. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator who did a thorough WP:BEFORE, fails each and every WP:BAND criteria. It's a shame because her albums are apparently well-received, both in China and abroad. (Interestingly, "Yao Si Ting" gets a lot more Google hits than her Chinese name, which is quite unusual for a Chinese singer.) Timmyshin (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify This is a BLP with no references which is a "draftify" at a minimum. I can't find a significant major RS on the subject and confirm the proposer's WP:BEFORE work. However, I could not work out the Chinese references and perhaps there is some there. However, at a minimum, it is a "draftify". Britishfinance (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There don't appear to be many sources on her, even in Chinese e.g. [37]. It seems that one of her album was nominated for an award [38]. Not quite sure if that qualifies her under WP:MUSICBIO #8 (a bit confused if the award is the Golden Melody Awards or another similar sounding one). Leaning delete because of the paucity of sources. Hzh (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the Golden Melody Awards, just a mainland shanzhai version. Timmyshin (talk) 00:11, 21 February 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.