Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 May 25 May >

Purge server cache

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. Article's since been improved and nom doesn't have an issue so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Vidya[edit]

Digital Vidya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's nothing at all to suggest the applicable notability and my searches at News, Highbeam and WP:INDAFD have only found expected mentions, simply nothing else convincing here. Notifying speedy tagger Smartse. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I meant to beef this up earlier when I posted some new sources on the talk page. It slipped my mind, but I had it on my watchlist, so thanks for reminding me with your AfD edit. I just added the Google and Microsoft partnerships to the clients section, added info to the lede highlighting the partnership with the Indian Government's vSkills program, added the recent launch of the Ask Digital Vidya online community, and added info about the new growth hacking course that was mentioned in Entrepreneur magazine. The Ask Digital Vidya launch was written about on Adage's Indian site (adageindia.in), which you can see in the search results if you Google the phrase Ask Digital Vidya Adage, but the US site keeps redirecting me to Adage.com. I have no idea how to view that link, but it's there attesting to notability with a better source than I was able to use.Timtempleton (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth Keeping - Added some more references - Digital Vidya is pioneer in online Digital Marketing Education in India. Added a book reference also. The Adage India story is available as well. Saikatblogger (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with thanks to User:Timtempleton for the edits. This company easily passes WP:GNG. This article shouldn't be deleted but rather tagged for improvements (more sources for example)! st170etalk 17:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. st170etalk 17:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. st170etalk 17:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. st170etalk 17:50, 31 May 2016 (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. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Love[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ankit Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article has no claim to notability.

  • His claim as a musician is "most watched music video of the week on MTV US". This fails WP:MUSICBIO.
  • His claim as a producer/director rests on a 52 second YouTube advertisement with 5 million views and no media coverage and a documentary film that was one of the 224 films played at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival also with no media coverage. This fails WP:DIRECTOR.
  • His claim to notability as an activist revolves around his standing in the London mayoral election. His campaign was an abject failure placing last of 12 candidates with the lowest number of votes ever recorded in such an election. This fails WP:POLITICIAN.
  • He also claims to be the Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir. Aside from the absurdity, lack of verifiability and poor sourcing of this claim, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

The article is well sourced but the coverage is wholly insignificant failing the basic WP:GNG too. Additionally, the article was created and is maintained by an account demonstrating a clear conflict of interest and the previous deletion debate was plagued with sockpuppetry by someone displaying a similar conflict of interest. N4 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and Filmmakers -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History -related deletion discussions.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, WP:NPOL and WP:MUSICBIO. There is quite a bit of press coverage related to his election bid but since he does not pass NPOL is does not count towards GNG since it is normal campaign coverage. The only song of note he has that charted was not on a chart considered adequate for the purposes of WP:MUSICBIO JbhTalk 00:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Agree entirely with the nominator. There is zero evidence to demonstrate that Ankit Love has any notability whatsoever, and the article is written with an obvious conflict of interest. I support the notion that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I also removed his claim to being the head of the House of Dogra, as I could not find any reliable sources to back up such a claim, which has no merit to begin with. Cyanhat (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The last AfD proposal submitted about Ankit Love was plagued with a significant amount of presumed sockpuppetry and editors with insignificant contributions. Be on the lookout for such activity in this AfD discussion to ensure that we can come to a valid, fair and just consensus. Cyanhat (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just realized that the nominator already wrote about the sockpuppetry and I had a lapse of memory. That being said, this point needs to be emphasized with great weight.Cyanhat (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per others above. An SPA has put a lot of work into the article -- some of it good, some of it failing NPOV -- but there's just not enough there. His political candidacies can be covered on the appropriate election articles or under One Love Party (if that's not also deleted), as per WP:NPOL. There may be other material, like that around his Kashmir claims, that could usefully go to Bhim Singh (politician) (his father). But an article of his own, not yet. Bondegezou (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and comments above as lacking sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Many mentions in blogs and internet news posts do not add up to notability for Wikipedia's purposes, though they may support notoriety. Much work was done on this article, but subject still lacks sufficient independent sources for true notability. As a side note, the One Love Party article, the other creation of the SPA, is also nominated for deletion. Same issues there. The article on his father, Bhim Singh, is a good contrast to illustrate the differences between notoriety and notability in the context of Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps some mention of Mr. Love belongs in that article, as per another comment above. Geoff | Who, me? 15:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At first glance this person may look notable, but when you look at the sources carefully it becomes clear that it's an awful lot of passing mentions, self-promotion, and exaggeration. Someone appears to have gone to a lot of trouble to try to make Mr. Love famous, but there's really not much here, certainly not enough to make him notable. The only thing that has changed since the last AFD is his long-shot mayoral candidacy, which does not make him notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here is a compelling claim of notability, the sources are not substantively about him in the manner necessary to pass WP:GNG, the only new thing that keeps this from being a straight G4 speedy still isn't actually a claim of notability that gets a person over the bar in and of itself, and it's worth noting that the article was created by an WP:SPA who has never made a single non-Love related edit as far as I can tell. Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Yet there is no denying that Love is Dogra royal," is a quote from the source TopYaps that's worth considering in regards to Love's claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Int Researcher (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: TopYaps is an unreliable secondary source and should be disregarded. Cyanhat (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Cyanhat TopYaps has over 600,000 followers on it's facebook page, I would say that would give them some account of reliability. Further this article in Daily News and Analysis a broadsheet newspaper reports Love as "a 32-year-old erstwhile royal." WP:ROYALTY--Int Researcher (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Int Researcher 7+ million people liked the Facebook page for Buzzfeed. Buzzfeed is not always a credible source, and is largely not fact-checked The amount of likes does not make something a credible source: see Argumentum ad populum. Based on cursory research, DNA India is also not a reliable source, but I don't want to make that judgement yet. If any users would like to weigh in on the credibility of DNA India, I encourage them to do so as I don't have any extensive experience weighing the credibility on South-East Asian newspapers other than a major few. Cyanhat (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive arguments and accusations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Comment: Please note that User:Int Researcher is a Single Purpose Account that has only made edits directly pertaining to Ankit Love and his party One Love Party, of which he claims to be leader. There is an ongoing sockpuppetry investigation on this user. This user does not follow policies regarding WP:NPOV and clearly has a Conflict of Interest, appearing to be, or directly affiliated, with Ankit Love, of which this individual keeps trying to downplay by not responding, or acknowledging this matter. Cyanhat (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I have clearly stated on the Ankit Love talk page, I have no association with the subject found in the "Deletion of Security Concern" sub-section. All this finger pointing is a clear indication of a lack of an argument and weakness in logical debate to cover a bias in blatant violation of WP:NPOV possibly on nationalistic conditioning. Would User:Cyanhat please care to reveal their nationality and origin? Is there any link to India or South Asia? As that appears to be the fundamental political basis of bias here.--Int Researcher (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: Your claims that somehow militants from India dispute your illegitimate claim has nothing to do with this. Any administrator is welcome to verify my claims that I am not logging in from South-East Asia. My race, nationality, and origins have nothing to do with this, and the fact that you bring it up, shows that you have no real conceivable defense for your actions on Wikipedia, and how desperate you have become in trying to keep the uncited and false facts within your article unnoticed. If you have no association, why are you engaging in ownership of articles related to Ankit Love and accusing every editor making changes to the articles and removing uncited facts as vandals? You are so defensive of what you write that I dispute your objectivity and adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:COI, and given what has occurred in the previous AfD, I am more than willing to brazenly and openly call you out on it. If you really are unaffiliated with Ankit Love, to what compelling reason is there to creating a single-purpose account writing solely on Ankit Love topics, and to what compelling reason did you create these articles for any other reason than to make Ankit Love a more legitimate figure through sockpuppet promotion? Cyanhat (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Please be aware Cyanhat initiated attacks and accusations in violation of wikipedia's policy to assume good faith, as clearly seen here and on the article's talk page. Once good faith policy has been violated initially in consideration to this article's geopolitical association with the ongoing armed Kashmir conflict it's important to consider agendas based on nationalism. Especially as the user had called the subject "Ankit Singh" and made a delete based on a contentious statement that the Maharaja as "Head of the House of Dogra is not even an operational office of government," which is the official line of the government of India, though in contrary to this statement by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir made in July 2015: "The sovereignty of the State of J&K under the rule of Maharaja... legally and constitutionally remained intact and untampered,”--Int Researcher (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply - Given how irrational that this user is becoming, it is evident that he can't really be taken seriously at this point. See Talk:Ankit_Love#Deletion_of_Security_Concerns, Talk:Ankit_Love#Deletion_of_association_with_George_Galloway, Talk:Ankit_Love#Deletion_of_American_and_Art_Schooling for accusations that Wikipedia editors are part of a wide-spread conspiracy by American intelligence agencies to suppress information regarding Ankit Love. This is in spite of the fact that nobody cares about Ankit Love, and the lack of notability is why his article is being nominated for deletion to begin with. I do not believe I am in violation of the assumption of good faith, as I have reason to believe that the editor is acting in bad faith, given his single purpose account used strictly for Ankit Love topics, his inability to comprehend WP:NPOV (see edit history on Ankit Love and the content he has written, presumed WP:COI given his exclusivity on the previously mentioned topics and unsourced original research on the article (see article revision history), ownership of all articles related to Ankit Love (see article revision history in which he keeps reverting edits and engaging in edit wards. as well, see Talk:Ankit Love and the history of sockpuppetry on this topic. I do not believe that the House of Dogra is a valid office whatsoever. The claim is limited to his own statements, and the user references numerous articles that doesn't even reference himself/Ankit Singh or Love. The sources that are independent and notable largely do not mention him. He has no supporters whatsoever in Kashmir from the sources I have ascertained, and therefore, his claim is not legitimate. It is not a matter of whether or not he, himself, claims the throne, it is a matter of whether his claim is notable whatsoever, and from the research I have done, it is not. As well, I merely removed the infobox, which User:FyddleStix agreed that such a claim was allowable in the article itself, but not in an infobox. I personally believe that the user User:Int Researcher is either Ankit Love, a colleague of Ankit Love, or someone out to make Ankit Love look bad by making an alternate account for the sole reason of making him seem entirely irrational and stupid. The former-most option is the most likely of them all. However, the conclusion is inescapable, and that his article should be deleted for lack of notability because nobody cares about him, his illegitimate and unbacked claims for an inoperational office of government, or what work he has done. To reiterate for User:Int Researcher's sake, it is reasonable to assume that nobody cares about Ankit Love, and given that he is so insignificant in the grand scheme of the Kashmir Conflict, it is more likely in all reality, that nobody cares. It is far more likely that you are accusing editors of being part of an American Intelligence operation to suppress information about Ankit to cover your own inconsistent and lack thereof an actual defense to the matter, or to make Ankit Love look insane in the eyes of the general public. Cyanhat (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I'm going to stop now quite frankly. This is going no where for the both of us, and it is evident you are just trying to antagonise the editors who refute your apprehensive behaviour and largely unsourced research. You are welcome to have the last word, for now. Cyanhat (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment once again statements such a "I have reason to believe that the editor is acting in bad faith", with the key word there being "believe" show violation of assumption of good faith. With the key word there being "assumption", a belief to the contrary would be thus violation of the policy then.--Int Researcher (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Personal and unsourced suppositions such as "it is more likely in all reality that nobody cares" are not criteria to judge notability by on wikipedia. Published secondary reliable sources are, which the subject of the article has "significant coverage" of in reality and by which he meets the wikipedia policy of WP:GNG.--Int Researcher (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Please refrain from using my words to attack other editors. My words do not reflect the opinions of others. Cyanhat (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: To elaborate further specific on suppositions here of "marginally sourced grandious claims" is once again an unsourced and potentially fallacious opinion. Consider that headlines in published sources such as "Emperor of Kashmir' running for London mayor. This is not a joke", Kashmir Has A King, Living in Exile and Meet Ankit Love, The 32-Year-Old 'Maharaja Of Jammu & Kashmir' in Huff post in reality do exist, as well as this published report in Huck magazine in which the reporter states "On the basis of this research – which from my little investigation seems legit – Ankit Love claims to be the current Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir." I sincerely wonder if people have actually fully read and watched all the citations before getting involved in editing this article.--Int Researcher (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notice I've tidied up a number of your comments as they were sprawled everywhere - please keep this page tidy. Also a friendly reminded to keep things civil. Any comments or personal attacks about identity or national origin - no matter how true - have no place here and do not meaningfully contribute to the discussion. This AfD is to determine whether Love is notable. Let's keep this as the focus. Thanks. N4 (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to User:Int Researcher's keep opinion. I am the original nominator. Yes, there are many articles in which Love is the featured subject or mentioned in - far more of the latter than the former - but all those articles comprise normal coverage of an election campaign. To illustrate, there are a great many articles in which the election's other independent candidate, Prince Zylinski, is mentioned yet we do not have an article on Zylinksi because he, like Love, has not received significant coverage as an individual required to fulfil the basic general notability guideline regardless of the number of promotional media appearances available to source. In the absolute best case scenario, if we were to somehow conclude that Love is notable (which simply isn't going to happen given that the seven of us prior to your arrival had reached a snow delete consensus and that you've demonstrated repeatedly an inabilty to maintain a neutral point of view), he still wouldn't merit an article as he would only be notable for one event. He should simply be mentioned in the candidates section of London mayoral election, 2016 as he already is. I have sincerely seen zero argument for otherwise. N4 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to N4's delete opinion There was also coverage of Love in published secondary sources prior to this election. Further the connection revealed in regards to Love's royal and political family is distinctly different from Prince Zylinski who's contest seems to be a one off as an independent with the main policy to ban Farage from London. Love is the leader and founder of a registered British political party that wishes to legalise cannabis and promotes renewable energies amongst other policies. He is also contesting again with the One Love Party in the Tooting MP by-election on 16 June, which the Prince is not. Further the political and historical context of Love's father that leads and founded the Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party as highlighted in the citations is of notable encyclopaedic value and that has decades of sources in it self which once again the Prince does not. Consider why Carlos, Duke of Parma, Chelsea Clinton, Fatima Bhutto have pages here on wiki in regards to their royal and political families.Further Zylinski may still qualify for an article here. Just because one has not been created thus far does not mean that it could not already be included.--Int Researcher (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I'm going to assume that you agree Love is not notable as per the first three bullet points of my nomination (WP:MUSICBIO, WP:DIRECTOR, WP:POLITICIAN) and assume that you're arguing for his notability based entirely on his claim as Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir. If that's the case, I'll put aside his involvement in the elections as that's not relevant to his claimed notability. With Zylinksi, you have entirely missed my point - he may qualify for an article but that notability would be independent from his electoral campaign - but again I'll assume good faith and set aside the political line in favour of the royal line of enquiry that appears to be your argument here.
You assert that Love is in pre-election secondary sources - show me the sources. The three sources on Love's article relating to his claim (sources 4/5/6) all date April/May 2016. The three sources relating to his family's movement from Jammu and Kashmir (sources 12/13/14) all date May 2016. If you can find me two or three independent sources that pre-date his election campaign demonstrating Love's claim, I will be happy to reconsider my position. Two other points. Regarding the "political and historical context of Love's father" - that doesn't help your cause as notability is not inherited and his father has his own article. Regarding Carlos, Clinton and Bhutto, they are all notable in their own right regardless of their heritage satisfying the WP:GNG while I do not believe Love does. N4 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to N4 Yet there is also Love's short film Whale! that has received over 1 million views on youtube was premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. Along with his other media roles as editor-in-chief of a science and fashion publication that he was featured for in the Journal of Wild and Culture in 2013 "A brand new magazine has arrived to combine cutting-edge science with high-end fashion. Katherine Templar Lewis speaks to Ankit Love, the brains behind Mist magazine." and is featured in Rare Curation: "Ankit Love is the modern creative chameleon. We speak to the editor about his innovative new magazine MIST, to talk about all things science, fashion and technology in the modern digital age revolution." He also has mention as co-founder of BRIC magazine in this article on the Good Web Guide and on the masthead of the magazine on it's first issue. So Ankit Love is clearly notable for his creative ventures as well as his political activities that have plenty of published secondary sources. You state that "It's blatantly clear that you do not understand how notability works." are you sure you understand notability? Can you also elaborate how exactly is Fatima Bhutto more notable than Ankit Love outside her family's political dynasty context? Most of the sources on her wikipedia page are actually dead, with a negative review of her book and other active ones all mention her family. Ankit Love has published coverage independent of his family which she doesn't have, so N4 can you please give sources and cite why you feel that Bhutto is "notable in [her] own right"? As Love has far more secondary sourced content in more reliable sources yet you have nominated this article for deletion. If anything it may be your understanding of notability and your neutrality that maybe questionable, and perhaps you should not have moved the order of my comments before.--Int Researcher (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to N4 notability (music) Love meets "1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources." as listed above. He meets "2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." FMQB is a national radio chart. He meets "11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." MTV and VH1 are national music channels he is play listed here as one of the 58 tracks on the "VH1 Fresh New Music Playlist" January 2012 alongside aritsts such as fun., Lenny Kravitz, Benny Benassi, Trey Songz and Gym Class Heroes. He has notability as a WP:POLITICIAN too, while, "3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Regardless of whether coverage was "normal campaign coverage," it's clearly significant and London is a high profile election, and there is the whole political family context from a war zone to add to the notability which one reliable source called "historic". He also meets WP:ENT 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. His facebook fan page has over 160,000 followers. He also meets WP:CREATIVE 3. multiple independent periodical articles. Yet it is the claim to the title of Maharaja of a disputed Sovereign and terror plagued State that is most significant and that has brought so much interest to this article in the first place. The claim is covered in multiple reliable sources. No clear policy on wikipedia of notability of royal claimants exist, however in an encyclopaedic sense this is simple, if a person is from a royal family they make claim to a title, it can even be disputed but still merits encyclopaedic inclusion such as the disputed title of Emperor of Brazil that was abolished in 1889 but is claimed by both Luiz and Pedro Carlos. Thus Love's claim to Jammu and Kashmir that was still directly ruled by the Maharaja till 1952 and till date is disputed has encyclopaedic value. A matter of fact his claim at this point is undisputed. Unless someone can find a reliable source pertaining to another claimant. That's why this story was published in several secondary sources in Asia despite the election being in London. There is also a List of current pretenders that are here on wikipedia, thus given the full context of the subject and his royal ancestry, his claim clearly merits inclusion. Maybe you don't like royal claims or find them grandiose, however in history those with royal ancestry making such claims especially when covered in the media should be included in an encyclopaedia. That's why baby Prince George has an article here already. Royalty is one exception where notability can actually be inherited. You cant argue with the history of royal ancestry, this can't be deleted in an encyclopaedia even if it's unpopular.--Int Researcher (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unproductive arguments and accusations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reply to Int Researcher - (This was originally posted in Talk:Ankit_Love#Deletion_of_Bhim_Singh.27s_support_for_Love.27s_concept_of_reunion_of_India.2C_Pakistan_and_Bangladesh - In response to your notion that somehow notability is inherited in the cases of powerful or wellknown children of government officials and royalty: Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is a well-known politician and thus is notable. The baby Prince George of Cambridge has aroused significant media attention for the past few years and thus is notable. Chelsea Clinton is a well-known figure in the United States for her role as an NBC correspondent and charity backer and thus is notable. [In continuation of this point for this specific AfD: All the individuals you list on Wikipedia have attained notability in some form or manner.] Notability is not inherited (see WP:INHERIT), but in those cases, those individuals aroused media attention and met notability guidelines based on coverage and the fact they were in the eyes of the public quite frequently. Mr. Ankit is not notable (sparing election coverage of the London Elections which does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines), and seeing as he does not inherit notability, and given that Ankit Love is not on the mind of the public nor a valid contender for anything, simply means that the statements inherent are not notable whatsoever. Therefore, the removal of such statements are valid and justified. Cyanhat (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Cyanhat In writing "Reply to Ankit Singh" you are once again in repeated violation of wikipedia's policy to assume good faith and are being uncivil. There is enough media coverage on Ankit Love for him to be notable under multiple angles of WP:GNG as mentioned above have you read the sources? Just one specific instance of meeting notability (music) of "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." is that he was on the VH1 Fresh New Music Playlist: January 2012 in the USA. To want to delete my comments or sources on a talk page is blatantly wrong. I would appreciate if the admin User:Ymblanter who placed the "Ankit Love" page under full protection yesterday would be so kind as too look into this.--Int Researcher (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Int Researcher, the response made by Cyanhat above was neither uncivil nor a violation of any of Wikipedia's policies regarding good faith assumptions. I think you should review and understand Wikipedia's assume good faith and civility policies and guidelines before you accuse others of violating them. You've also contributed a lot of discussion here, which is appearing to dive off-topic and away from the root of which this AFD exists to discuss. Perhaps you should take a break from here for a bit. Remember... Wikipedia is not about winning :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By my humble beliefs referring to me as "Ankit Singh" when I have made it clear I have no association with the subject, who's name in the first place is "Ankit Love" does seem to be in violation of assume good faith policy. Regardless User:Oshwah maybe you are right on that I should take a break from all this, as this is indeed getting tiring thank you.--Int Researcher (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Int Researcher - Ahh... Okay... I see what you mean. I didn't catch that at all. If he is calling you "Ankit Singh" with the implication that you are a COI, then yes... that can be interpreted as behavior that I'd see as nonconstructive. Cyanhat, it appears that Int Researcher is interpreting your reference to "Ankit Singh" as calling him a COI editor. I'm not sure what the intentions are, as I don't have the full story, but let's refer to others by their username so that no misinterpretations or frustrations will flare up. We don't want to upset other editors; we want to stick to the root of the discussion and make content-related arguments. Can we do that? :-) ...If we are reading your reference incorrectly, please let us know. Otherwise, lets be impartial here and stick to the content :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:Int Researcher and User:Oshwah - Apologies to both of you. It was late when I wrote this and got things mixed up. Modified the reply to Int Researcher for this. Points within continue to remain standing. Cyanhat (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cyanhat - Thanks for letting us know about the mistake. No worries; we all make them! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FMQB is not an IFPI-certified national chart, so it does not count toward the establishment of notability under NMUSIC's "charting hit" criterion. The only US-based chart that's listed in WP:CHART as satisfying that criterion, in fact, is Billboard. Another requirement for a chart to satisfy that criterion is that the charts are archived somewhere that we can directly verify the claimed chart positions — self-promoting musicians often claim to have had much bigger charting hits than they really did, so we need to be able to explicitly confirm the chart position a song or album actually did or didn't attain. But FMQB's "charts" are not archived anywhere. And in terms of his political endeavours, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election — a person has to win the election, and thereby hold a notable office, to attain notability on the basis of their political activity. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply "If anything it may be your understanding of notability and your neutrality that maybe questionable, and perhaps you should not have moved the order of my comments before." I moved your comments before so that the comments on this page are in chronological order - the order in which we post things. You would do well to post things in chronological order yourself as then editors can actually follow a discussion.
Your suggestion that I am less than neutral is a very serious allegation. You will note that in my comment 22:50, 27 May, only the second comment I've made here since my original nomination, you will see that I, in good faith, made the effort to understand exactly what you believe his claim to notability is.
I acknowledged that if we go down the royal line there may be a claim to notability, acknowledged that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir may give rise to credibility to his claim and noted that you say there's evidence of his claim pre-election. So, I done what very few editors were be prepared to do and asked that you provide a few sources so I could look it over in more detail.
Not only did you come back and offer me the grand sum of jack shit to support your assertion that he's a notable royal pre-election but you then insult the one person who's made effort to understand your position rather than simply criticise it as the illogical perspective of a cult-of-personality fanatic that you seemingly are. Your insistence here and habit of turning things personal is bordering on harassment. If you want to talk neutrality, start by looking in a mirror.
This discussion is closed. Consensus has been overwhelmingly reached. Ankit Love will be deleted. If you are truly incapable of understanding why there is nothing I or any other editor here can do to reason you out of a position you never reasoned yourself into. N4 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to N4 I do sincerely apologise if I offended you, that was not my intention. But I don't know if you have been following this thread, the false accusations and attacks started against me first. Saying things like "sum of jack sh*t" and "start by looking at your self in the mirror" is hurtful but I can understand you are passionate, as am I, yet I have not used foul language here. But I appreciate we are all human here and this article and the Kashmir conflict it references certainly makes people impassioned after all it's an ongoing armed conflict. You asked me a question about providing sources for notability, I went and did the research and presented sourced secondary content. It's not my fault that these sources exist. In terms of reordering comments, I apologise once again if your intentions were only to reorganise comments, I have felt comments by other editors may not have been reordered, so I was feeling singled out. The only article I could find pre-election was this one on CNN but it's on ireport to clarify on June 2015. However, I feel having articles before on his royal status are not necessary, as once the royal connection has been reported in reference to royalty it encapsulates the history of that royal family and dynasty before too, for which sources exist prior to the election of-course. WP:ROYALTY I believe it would be unfair to close the discussion like this, especially if you "acknowledged that if we go down the royal line there may be a claim to notability." I thank you for your consideration.--Int Researcher (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The only reason I decided to weigh-in after making the nomination was to establish whether there could actually be any value in what your saying where other editors were not prepared to do so - as demonstrated on Love's talk page. If I was not neutral I would not have done so. I completely accept your apology. Likewise, I apologise for my lack of restraint in my counter-arguments. I can also reassure you that the sole purpose was to put the comments in order and that comments by User:Cyanhat were affected too.
My position is that Love is not a notable musician, director or politician but may be a notable royal. If a claim to notability exists, it comes about through his claim as Maharaja and cannot be supported by his work in music, film or activism. I asked for sources demonstrating his claim as Maharaja pre-dates his election campaign. You did not provide such sources until the CNN article in your most recent comment - and yes, it does appear both reliable and independent. It provides new information that we didn't previously have and we may or may not be able to use it to establish notability. I'm going to take a break from this for 24 hours or so (couldn't keep away!) and would recommend you do the same. I'll be back to reassess the situation later. N4 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Your source is far less reliable and independent than first appears. It even comes with the disclaimer "not verified by CNN" as it isn't actually by CNN - anyone could create it. Reading through the article, it consists of the same sort of grandiose royal claims that exist in the other less-than-reliable sources we've seen to date - the only source for such claims is Love himself. Stepping back, we do not have any reliable, independent sources at all to base Love's claim to notability (Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir) on. I therefore reiterate my support for delete. N4 (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer if this closes as delete please WP:SALT the title. In this person ever becomes notable then going through WP:AFC will not be too great a hardship for whomever wants to write the article and will prevent others from needing to sort through all sorts of marginally sourced grandious claims such as we have had in both this version of the article as well as the last. JbhTalk 17:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Agreed. A WP:SALT would be very helpful and help prevent future protracted and heated discussions in the future. If Ankit Love does become relevant in the future, it wouldn't be hard to go about creating an article with approval. If the consensus does become delete, then I think this course of action would be the most effective step. Cyanhat (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the nominator and the reasons cited above. The page was definitely created and expanded by SPA and COI accounts, and the sources do not appear to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, while others do not appear to be secondary, leading to the failure of WP:GNG (and largely due to the fact that significant coverage doesn't appear to exist, which is a required attribute). I also agree that salting should be considered if conflict continues to arise after deletion (the article is currently fully protected due to content disputes). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck !vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

* Strong Keep: Wow. What passions! It looks heaven will fall for some people if this page is allowed to stay. People favouring deletion feel that Ankit Love has no notability. I feel This artist has been in public eye for long time and has enough name to be called a public figure. My mom or my village people have no knowledge of Obama or Michael Jackson does not mean they have no notability. Wiki is international forum and sure knows public notability is relevant from place to place.

I feel by raising the issues of killer air pollution, poor housing and killer loan problems in the life of young students and above all the dangers of nuclear weapons in the hot bed of terrorist activities in south East Asia, he has caught the eyes of the powers to be who will like to crush any voice which is against War, against killing of innocent people and against Imperialistic treachery against people.

Today Mr. Obama has said in Japan that the we should commit to a nuclear free world. We need moral revolution. Looks like he read Ankit Love's page. This is what exactly Ankit Love is demanding. A revolution to save the world. A moral revolution. A nuclear free world. The delirious delete lovers have not got it.They will like to keep the Iron control on the world power by deleting people who are raising the voice to save the world.

One Love Party is about 7 months old not yet born properly, yet by raising the issues of injustice against people by the democratically elected Govts, it has raised so much passion among powers to be. They are afraid that people will demand the security against air pollution, against nuclear weapons just in case Love Party succeeds to spread the revolution to save the world. Therefore kill it knock it out..

It is clear from the tone and choice of words of the discussions that the most powerful have taken it on themselves to crush the voice of dissent and revolution. Ankit Love and his party colleagues have hit the bull's eyes so naturally the bulls are raging and chasing to boot the Love Party in the arena of public life.

Kashmir is a complex 69 year old problem. Ankit Love, through his artistic presentation made large section of people including wiki editors aware of this problem. So far majority of world population had no knowledge. Kashmir, a hot bed of terrorist activities and thriving Nuclear rivalries between three Nuclear nations China, Pakistan, and India is taking the world towards Nuclear War. Ankit Love it seems in his own artistic mocking way is warning the whole world of the dangers of such looming disasters. He surely have annoyed the " Power Club'.

Under politicians wiki policy is: political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Love party is only seven months old. The kind of coverage the most reputed radio station, TV stations, World renowned News web sites, and alternative media has given to Ankit Love and Love Party is proof enough that they have understood the importance of this new movement. Some of them said that they were rooting for this Unique young man and his programs and he was worth your vote. If that is not notability what it will be?

What Ankit Love and his friends achieved in two weeks time without any resources is amazing. Why grudge a satirical self praise. Are heavens, religions or social norms going to fall because of that. As for his self publicity which political leader or artist does not do that, Will you recommend to delete trump or Hillary on that criteria.

Is it the policy of WP to allow its editor to kill the voice of dissent without even knowing the credentials of the editors and allow the powerful criminal politicians to rule the world without any one challenging them.

On a serious note does WP has the same policy to keep a check on its volunteers. Is it not possible that some of them willingly or unwillingly are working under the agenda of powers to be and helping to kill the voice of dissent and eventually democratic systems. It will be worth a investigation how many of them are for real or how many are moles planted by the most powerful. Wikipedia should not allow witch hunting of innocent people especially those who are trying to challenge the Royalty which exist today in the life style of many elected leaders. We are spending more money on War than food for people. We are spending more money on the flight of leaders to meet to discuss poverty than to help the poor. We are spending more money on creating terrorists than to protect the venerable. Elected leaders have made this world a killers den and a impossible place to live without fear. Love Party is making an attempt to stop the stench.

In a very short time these kids have been able to raise awareness and has been covered surprisingly positively by the world press. Huffington Post will not take note or Live TV will not waste time if they did not think it was good to have such a Party. It is only one person who does not even have a users page on wiki is so passionately try to kill the beginning of a revolution. he has taken it on self not only to kill the page but break the spirit of Ankit Love by using the harshest possible language.

He is a man known for his strong ideas against War, against misuse of democratic powers, against injustice the invisible forces. Wiki is a serious forum and should not allow the moles to be present in it fold.. Deleting the page will be deleting the voice which is crying for justice for all. love for all and peace for all.This may contribute to kill the freedom of expression. Think again. I feel not only notability this page passes all other criteria. The reference to royalty is a matter which cannot be reason for deletion. Please listen to Ankit's song which he wrote 4 years ago. "It's a mental revolution we need no War". He is a man known since long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peopleunite (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'm striking out this vote, as it is obviously made by a COI / SPA. If this is not acceptable or appropriate, any experienced editor may remove the redaction. Just let me know if you do so. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes even I agree with User:Oshwah here in striking out that vote. As the comment by "Peopleunite" is not helping create a constructive debate based on wikipedia policy and is too long, convoluted and off specific topic. I would suggest to User talk:Peopleunite to study the way wikipedia works before getting involved in this debate again. WP:NPOV and WP:GNG--Int Researcher (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:POLITICIAN. In a campaign as prominent as that for Mayor of London, even the "no hope" candidates are going to get a lot of publicity. The consensus is that local councillors and failed political candidates (and even prospective ones) are NN, unless and until elected. Unless he is notable for other reasons (which I cannot judge), we should not keep this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have we not hit the point of SNOW DELETE yet? There is not a snowball's chance in hell of this article not being deleted. The article is full protected and the only keep vote is from the article creator. Someone please have mercy on this thread and close it so we do not have three more days of pointles argument. JbhTalk 16:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck !vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

DELETE: I'm Ankit Love & I want this ridiculous article deleted now! Got a msg on my fb bout this delete chat the other day, thought the page of me were already removed last year. and dude I was wondering why I was losing traffic on ankitlove.com, cause this thing ranks top on google! wft!? I lost tens of thousands of hits during the london election on my web site, I dont want the same for tooting. I hate that this says "He claims to be", that's nonsense man, I am the Emperor, I already claimed it!! If peps dont get i'm a Sovereign head of State that's their problem, shouldn't be the 1st thing on google bout me. It's so offensive to my cause and family that this ranks above my own political and commercial sites and anyone can write anything here like that bs guardian review of my music, it was not even a rap song, and they should not have called me a "sun god", just cause some people believe my family's descended from him, that's so insulting to our religion too. Last year some mad stalker hacked my social media and linkdin accounts and really put ridiculous things on a wiki page about buddha just cause there is a belief my family is related to him, for which my mother got stoned in J&K. I am dealing with a war zone ppl!! Do you know what that feels like!? My cousin is a Major and had his leg blown off on a land mine, my uncle is a Colonel and got shot in the war. & all this info can be dangerous to my life and that of my family if it's not controlled right. So it's total bs that this type of site takes over SEO. If people really want to help me, then any wiki thing about me should be banned from being made EVER!! My family has been fighting against 7 terrorist groups in J&K for over 40 years including taliban & al-queada and I'm gonna take those mofos down for destroying my life!! So I dont need to also have to deal with this bs info. It don't help me man. I want this deleted, gone NOW, thats an order!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir (talk • contribs) 17:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Redacting vote. Obviously not here to contribute productively to this discussion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that you really are who you claim to be, please note that the article will be kept or deleted based on our inclusion policies, not your own personal public relations desires, and if it does get kept (which is unlikely) its content will be governed by our content and reliable sourcing policies, not your own personal public relations desires. In fact, per our conflict of interest rules you get no special privileges to control the existence and/or content of the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this user cannot be Ankit Love, this must be a fake. Surely it's in Ankit Love's interest to have an article on Wikipedia.--Int Researcher (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all unheard of for people to request or demand deletion of an article about them — especially a certain class of self-promoting wannabes who are inconvenienced by the fact that our content policies prevent them from controlling it. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt – At least I enjoyed reading the passionate discussion — JFG talk 17:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OR discussion/wall of text about nobility. Please take further discussion to article talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment I've been looking into Love's claim. Obviously this is original research so I'm not too sure if this helps but figured having done the research I may as well declare it in case there are interested parties.
Love's father is Bhim Singh, who is descended from Zorawar Singh (1786-1841) of the Dogra dynasty. To get from Love (born 1983) to a Maharaja, you have to go up the family tree 197 years (that's 7 to 10 generations) then sideways across the family tree as Zorawar Singh is not of the royal line. Love is not descended from any of the Maharajas. Not only that but his claim is through an ancestor who died five years before the installment of the first Maharaja, Gulab Singh, in 1846.
On top of all this, the last person to officially hold the title of Maharaja is still alive AND politically active AND has children AND grand-children of his own. Love is not "royal", nor a "claimant". He is a self-obsessed narcissist who propagated a delusional "I am Emperor" claim in order to gain media attention and notoriety during the mayoral election. No notability as has been discussed many times above.
It's been an enjoyable ride but I must support a snow delete and salt. N4 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we are venturing into the domain of original research lets first point out that based on my research in the context of this case, the claim made by User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir to be Ankit Love is profoundly dubious. I sincerely doubt a royal of Love's background and education would express himself so primitively here. I believe this could be a ploy added here to accelerate the deletion process without giving the full time and consideration to this debate. Especially judging by the comments that have followed. Next, N4 I am glad you mentioned the ex crown prince Karan Singh here, from my research Karan Singh was never coronated as the Maharaja, he was in fact only the Prince Regent and then abdicated to become the President of Jammu and Kashmir in 1952. This is clear in the interview Karan Singh himself gave to Outlook Magazine saying "I followed Pandit Nehru and not my father." So him being simply still alive is not sufficient grounds to throw out Love's claim. This in it self is nothing unique either, please remember after Edward VIII abdicated as King of England, he was still living through the reign of the current Queen Elizabeth II. Further you bring up that Karan Singh and his children are involved politically still in India, well further research indicates that would be grounds to exclude them from being the Maharaja. In fact Karan Singh was a cabinet minister in the government of India that passed the 26th Constitutional Amendment of 1971 that barred all Indian citizens from holding royal titles that would include his children too. Remember Love is not an Indian citizen, he is a British citizen which means that amendment would not legally apply to him anymore. This also is comparable to the Act of Settlement 1701 in the United Kingdom where all Catholics were disqualified from inheriting the British throne, same goes with the throne of Jammu and Kashmir all Indian citizens are disqualified from inheriting it. Once again Love does not claim royal heritage through Prime Minister & General Zorawar Singh. While he is related to Zorawar his royal lineage is through an even older Dogra line of Prince Mian Dev of Udhampur, son of Raja (King) Dhruv Dev (1703 - 1725) of Jammu as reported in this article on Kashmir Life magazine. Remember Karan Singh's father Maharaja Hari Singh (1925–1961) himself inherited the title from his uncle Pratap Singh (1885-1925), and that Maharaja Gulab Singh (1792–1857) from where Karan Singh's linage originates himself was not a direct Dogra heir and was a General in the army of the Sikh emperor Ranjit Singh who invaded Jammu in the early 19th century displacing Raja (King) Jit Singh and appointed him as initially as a vassal. It's also worth considering here that Love's father Bhim Singh won elections twice as an MLA in the Udhampur region and then also won a Member of Parliament election for the Indian government from Udhampur, while Love's cousin Harsh Dev won an MLA election from the area and was a cabinet minister in the Jammu and Kashmir government. I agree it is complex, but none the less these facts of history suggest Love's claim is notable for inclusion on wikipedia WP:ROYALTY. Further, there is no source anywhere of Karan Singh or his children making a claim to the title of Maharaja and neither for Love's father or cousins who are also citizens of India. To add even if there were two claimants it would still merit inclusion on wikipedia as is the case here with other even defunct Royal titles such as that of the King of Italy claimed by both Prince Amedeo and Vittorio Emanuele. I have done a lot of painstaking research and reading of complex histories, laws and conflicts to look beyond the surface of this situation and do sincerely hope my work will be considered appropriately in this debate.--Int Researcher (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Int Researcher: If I might inquire, why do you speak so highly of Ankit Love? You say his background prevents him from contributing to Wikipedia because it's "primitive". I would imagine many influential and well-regarded individuals are on Wikipedia. Not only that, but during the London Mayoral Elections, I recall him going onto the reddit.com/r/london subreddit, and using low-cost guerilla marketing to desperately hunt for votes. Not only that, but he also received the least amount of votes of any candidates. You would imagine someone from a wealthy, or at least prestigious background, would have significantly more media coverage, background and support. I don't think that Ankit Love is anywhere near as illustrious as you describe, and if he really was, he would be notable enough for a Wikipedia page (especially without a shill account, assuming that is the case, but you assert not so I won't further that) already that we wouldn't be having this discussion. You say he has incredible education: he doesn't. Harvard Doctorates and Rhodes Scholars edit on Wikipedia. Ankit Love has a partially-completed Bachelors degree from a third tier university according to his statements, that he dropped out of. And presumably numerous dubious attendances at educational institutions. I don't think his education is beyond any of us, in fact, I'm going to make the presumption that at least one other editor on this page has a bachelors degree. I'm going to firmly ask you a question, and this will infer whether or not you have a WP:COI and the accusatory statements you made before against other editors were mere hipocrisy: Why is it, that an anonymous single-purpose account claiming to be an impartial and neutral researcher of unknown credentials, has done significant genealogical, legal and historical research on an individual (perhaps even intruding on the privacy of Ankit Love in the sense of original research) that is largely unknown and by the general consensus of this Article for Deletion discussion, completely unnotable. I would hope to apply Occam's Razor to this matter. He has no significant backing from the Kashmir community, from what I have seen, and the statements about having a valid claim to be an emperor are largely from unreliable secondary sources. Given how well-informed you are, the more you write, I have become more and more skeptical about your intentions. If you have no connection to Ankit Love, how is it that you are so educated, specialized and determined in the matter of Ankit Love's claim to the throne? While this may seem like an accusatory reply, I actually genuinely want to know. The vast majority of editors on this page believe that you are engaged in a conflict of interest (see WP:COI), and with good reason, but this would clear things up pretty significantly if you can provide valid credentials and motives other than "I was interested and looked it up a bunch", "He's a notable individual and I thought he deserved a page on Wikipedia" or "I believe his claim to the throne is valid". I have yet to see individuals as determined as you are, desperate to keep such a page on Wikipedia when the consensus is to delete. I want to hear what exactly your side of the story is because evidently you have a massive vested interest in seeing this article persist, before I go off and believe in N4's claim that it seems this is nothing more than Ankit practicing his usual narcissism and pathological lying complex that I have seen during the London elections. And before you spout off on political partisanship and previous bias coming onto this thread because you keep doing that, especially with the absurdity of your American intelligence agency claims, keep in mind: I am currently being open about my activeness observing the London elections and London is a place that is very dear to me before I left. As well, I did not vote in the last election and I am currently not eligible to vote. I am not involved in London partisan politics. There is no conflict of interest with me and any other parties, and I am seeking to stand by Wikipedia's content and notability policies as best as I can to my knowledge. If the closing administrator or individual feels that I was biased in my decision-making, I don't have any objections and they're welcome to disregard my belief that this article should be deleted in favour of other opinions. And most of all: please don't respond to these questions with another accusation, or a personal attack, since you seem to have the nasty little habit of accusing everyone that disagrees with you of something heinous to deflect the negative attention, calling outs and accusations against you. This should be seen as a chance to make things right, and to re-establish your reputation since most believe you have a conflict of interest and cannot abide by notability guidelines. Cyanhat (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:Cyanhat: Dear Cyanhat, please allow me to start by apologising for my pervious beliefs that you were harbouring some nationalistic agenda. I can see clearly see that this was not the case now, you are clearly erudite and were acting with the best intentions, and I do respect that. However, if you had seen life from my perspective, there are many things that are not always as they seem and we do live in a world rife with misinformation. Now to address your points: Once again I believe we are starting with a misunderstanding, do allow me to clarify. I did not mean at all wikipedia is "primitive." I do respect wikipedia, that's why I have exhausted so much effort here and appreciate the fact there are many qualified individuals here. What I meant was behaviour from User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir was primitive when he claims to be Ankit, he should know better than making remarks in that fashion here. Call me old fashioned but this is not what I consider royal protocol. You of-course ask many valid questions about who I may be and my comments on Love's eduction. If we go by the sourced information, may I ask what you know of his school ACS Cobham? Are you aware that it costs £44,360 a year for boarding there, this despite it was only founded in 1967? While I am sure you have heard of Eton college college that was founded in 1440 and costs £37,062 per annum to attend or Harrow School founded in 1243 that costs £36,150 per annum for boarding. So one would certainly hope, for that price they would have taught User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir some better and more specific use of the English language. Consider now also who this school would attract with these sorts of fees? It's curious how conspiracy theorists speak of the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group, but no one has ever mentioned ACS Cobham the most expensive school in the UK. Once again we are getting into the territory of "personal research" but from my sources a member of the Al Nayhan family, a son of Roman Abramovich, a son of Roberto Cavalli, a son of Mohamed Al-Fayed and a son of Bob Dudley have all attended ACS Cobham. Yet I'd hazard a guess no one had even heard of this school before here? The thing is, when you move within certain circles you are privy to information others would never even cogitate, or perhaps find grandiose. I had known something about the Kashmir conflict, the Dogras, Karan Singh and Bhim Singh before the London elections, as I had of many other seemingly trivial conflicts such as the Balochistan conflict in Pakistan and Iran and the royal family of the Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri who had KGB associations and even his youngest son Mehran Marri who lives in the UK, but I was completely unaware of this character Ankit Love until these Mayoral elections. Which threw me by surprise with the knowledge I do have, how could I not know of him? Through the sources on Ankit's claim and my own knowledge on this region, I was able to direct my research and conclusions. You see if Ankit Love is genuine and behaves like a gentleman he signifies a lot of hope for the Middle East. Of-course, I had already known the CIA's Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan but had not before connected it to the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir till I researched the time line of the story of Ankit Love, as it connects so many seemingly divergent histories I knew of before. Perhaps it is too good to be true, but if it's a construct then well I'm flabbergasted. Consider Bin Laden was captured 2011 in Abbottabad that borders Jammu and Kashmir and the SAS and Delta Force were sent to Kashmir after 9/11 in 2002 as it was suspected by Intelligence agencies that Laden was being harboured there by Harkat-ul-Mujahideen who were initially trained by the CIA when they were called Harkat-ul-Ansar during Operation Cyclone in the 80s as reported in this article by the Telegraph newspaper. Though, I will confess if User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir is Ankit, I am certainly disappointed in this young man's conduct here, I would have accepted better behaviour on a public forum having attend ACS Cobham school. Perhaps, in the way I have been observing the Middle East, he seemed like a fresh hope out of nowhere. It was as if he was the best kept secret. Indeed why did not the mass media report more on him more? Perhaps he is just a wannabe, fabricating all this and our media realised so, or perhaps too there is possibility the owners of the for-profit media wanted to suppress his story. Remember some people profit greatly from conflicts, and peace is not in their business interests. These very people may be the owners of the media or oil companies or even illicit drugs trafficker. Were you aware that Ahmed Wali Karzai brother of the Afghanistan President was on the CIA payroll of 8 years until 2008 and has allegations of opium trafficking for the CIA as noted on this wikipedia page here. Maybe I read too much between the lines with Ankit Love trying to legalise drugs as a reaction to these intelligence agency activities in the Middle East. Thus I thought I was doing the world a favour by adding his claims here. I cannot fully reveal who I am here as I have concerns for my safety with all I have written here, but clearly I have more than a novice understanding of intelligence actives and royalty internationally. Do you know of the Freemasons, and their involvement in the French revolution? Or that Prince Philip Mountbatten has to the freemasons? That his uncle Lord Louis Louis Mountbatten signed the Instrument of Accession that started the war in Kashmir in the first place? Do you know that Prince Michael of Kent is the head of a freemason lodge established in Buckingham Palace as reported in the Daily Mail and they outsource computer services as revealed in this article on the Telegraph. That is why I default to my suggestion of Intelligence agencies and secret societies here. Also Cyanhat I do not know who you are either, and I don't mean this to cause any offence, as I believe you are genuine now. But you ask for my qualifications while you have not revealed anything on your wikipeida profile whatsoever, it does not even have a user page: User:Cyanhat, but maybe this is just an oversight. But what I know is in central Asia, things can change fast as they did in Iran when the CIA in the royalist 1953_Iranian_coup_d'état removed a democratically elected government and replaced them with the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and Jammu and Kashmir is even more unstable today, and seeing how the whole affair in the Middle East is governed by intelligence agencies including the Russian FSB, Pakistani ISI, Mossad, Indian RAW and the Saudi GIP this could be in or against the interest of any of those groups. This place Jammu and Kashmir now seems more and more curious to me, as even I was not fully aware of how clearly disputed the legislation of this territory were till I heard of Ankit and researched further. I was also unaware that the Dogra dynasty he claims royal lineage by has written recored history dating back to the 1300 BCE, that parallels the Egyptian Pharaohs now that should be fascinating for all. Perhaps it was wishful thinking but it would have been nice to see a young liberal leader ruling a Muslim majority state as a monarch one day as was once already attempted in Iran by the CIA, especially now in the current climate for us here. Now are you aware of how the CIA used modern art as a weapon in the Cold War despite President Truman not being aware as reported in this article on the Telegraph? Remember JFK was assassinated after his speech against secret societies at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Are you aware of the Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University? And that General General Akthar Khan head of the Pakistani secret service from 1979-1987 had Yale University links and was a personal friend of William J. Casey the chief of the CIA during most of Operation Cyclone. General Khan had also once attended the same school Bishop Cotton School, Shimla as Ankit is reported to have. Or that the KGB chief Viktor Chebrikov had bribed the political Gandhi dynasty with billions of dollars in Switzerland to promote Soviet ideological interests during the time of Operation Cyclone according to Harvard fellow Yevgenia Albats and USSR Resolutions of Communist Party of the Soviet Union as reported by Outlook magazine in this article? It is believed now that Sonia Gandhi and her son Raul Gandhi now have a net worth of up to $19 billion according to this article in Business Insider. Thus if you were party to the information that I have had privilege to know, which I understand very few have, it would not be an unlikely assumption that intelligence agencies in the 21st century to use an anonymous information resource such as wikipedia to battle out their agendas, now this gives a whole new meaning to the term edit wars. Or another simpler consideration is perhaps Ankit is in fact insane, this could be the case too, as his relation to his father Bhim Singh and the Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party is clear. Maybe he should simply go back to Jammu and Kashmir and join the political party his mother and father founded in 1982 and see what happens and who gets in touch with him then. I cannot imagine what kind of person would want live in a ghastly hostel in Hackney as was reported in the Hackney Gazette, if in this situation, seeing the billions that have been invested in this region by intelligence agencies. Certainly not me, I would most likely have taken the money. Either way I am perplexed and personally would like to have confirmation if User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir is Ankit Love or not. Maybe it is him, I would be disappointed if it was and comments like that would only compromise his sources of funding in my view. As I would not have imagined from his media profile for him to be so concerned about the google ranking of his personal website, that’s not the important thing here. This is about history for me, a history of a region that was written in secret. This will probably be my last contribution on wikipedia and so I will close with two quotes from the Joseph Conrad's colonial classic novel the Heart of Darkness in the words of Marlowe, "All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz, and by and by I learned that most appropriately the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs had entrusted him with the making of a report for its future guidance." (p.49) and that "You can't judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man." (p. 56)--Int Researcher (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject's very poor showing in the mayoral election means he fails WP:POLITICIAN. The other claims of notability - being head of the House of Sogra and a successful musician/producer - are self proclaimed and not backed up by independent sources. There are WP:RS that mention that Love makes these claims but they don't actually confirm the claims. There are also several WP:RS relating to his mayoral candidacy but that in itself does not make him notable - even the least notable candidate will receive some sort of mention in the media.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am amazed. How crude humans get against each other . All the people involved in this discussion seem to have taken a degree in bullying. This is indecent, barbaric, savage, brutal, merciless, monstrous and above all inhuman. It seems all the participants are vying for championship in bulling, intimidating, oppressing and tormenting. Nobody is caring about what kind of effect it is going to have on the person concern, the subject of this discussion. Wikipedia is spending charity money on such indecent attacks and counterattacks by the people involved in this discussion. Reconsider your policies. There is a law of the Land above all rules of different set ups on the internet. Tormenting and bulling people is not only inhumane but also against the law of land which this discussion is doing. Do not waste public money on such uncivil discussions. With freedom comes responsibility. Keeping any page or deleting is your prerogative. But allowing people to tear others people’s life is immoral and illegal. This is what happened in the past. Jesus claimed he was son of God without presenting any evidence and they put him on the Cross. Wikipedia should not do the same to His Children. To err is human. Throwing stones is inhumane and terrorism. Hopefully Wikipedia administrators will consider not allowing their pages to become the flashpoint of mental torture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangesky88 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Orangesky88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment User:Oshwah, what do you think about striking out this vote? I'll leave it up to your call. Cyanhat (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As heart felt as the above sentiment is, we need to stick to cold hard facts, sources and policy on wikipedia without prejudice. Thus, I would suggest also the redacting method as used by User:Oshwah previously. But not hatting, I do not believe anything should be hatted in this discourse.--Int Researcher (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further, here is a link to this page before it was truncated for anyone to wishing to consider such: http://www.freezepage.com/1464531439WORGCKCAPH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Int Researcher (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted paranoid (and silly) attempt at a personal attack. This user has been making the strangest conspiracy based attacks on other editors throughout this discussion and on the article talk page. I suggest it may be about time they get an enforced time-out. If anyone else wants to unhat the above material go ahead, I just wanted to clean up the walls of text that showed no sign of ending and have no policy based bearing on this AfD. Discussions of various conspiracy theories should be limited to the talk page or better yet some blog. JbhTalk 16:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comrade no. In my reply to the questions on intelligence agencies asked to me initially by User:Cyanhat that was only covered up in a hat after my expose response, I had stated too that "this will probably be my last contribution on wikipedia," and it would have been had you not hatted it. Now you want block me from commenting with a time out too. You really want to silence and ridicule me. That's ok, I know who I am. But may I politely ask you user:Jbhunley a question please? And I would greatly appreciate if User:Oshwah & user:JMiall would observe this response too. user:Jbhunley how did you discover the Ankit Love page before it was nominated for delete, as I take it you are not from London? And as you say he is not notable how did you manage to hear about him all the way in America then? I see you speak some Russian too. Dah, sveedahneeyah tevarih.--Int Researcher (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the AFD discussion regarding the article? Can we stay on topic and keep the discussion towards whether the article should be deleted or kept? I think that a lot of the responses and discussions here have delved very much away from the task at hand. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the AFD is based on determining whether this subject is notable or not. So it's worth considering that if the subject is not notable here in London even where he has just contested a mayoral election why and how are editors in America taking notice of his page? If he has not been published in any sources considered reliable, how did they discover him before the article was nominated for AFD. Of-course after the AFD listing it's understandable for people to get involved from all over. But prior to AFD if he is not notable, it seems strange people outside London and India where he was in the news would have taken so much notice of him, and spend so much time having his page deleted, if it was so unnoticeable by itself. So I am just curious to know how it was discovered in the USA. I believe that there is logic in that notion, and I am sure there can be a reason too, and so I am genuinely openminded here to know.--Int Researcher (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice regarding sockpuppetry. "I find it most unfair that user:Jbhunley struck out my vote and concealed my commentary in reply to User:Cyanhat's last questions for me..." I'd ask the closing admin consider this statement an admission of exactly the sort of sockpuppetry I warned about in my original nomination as has been seen in the previous deletion discussion. Note that User:Jbhunley hatted the struck votes by the suspected COI/SPA accounts User:Peopleunite and User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir. User:Int_Researcher's "struck out my vote" would seem to suggest that one of the comments hatted belongs to them. N4 (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:N4 My dear N4, I do apologise for the confusion caused. I can clearly see my vote was not hatted, but much of my other work is. The comment you refer to was also written in the heat of the moment after I had seen a long complex page with many things hatted and it looked to me like all my comments had been hatted. After I had spent considerable time writing a reply to User:Cyanhat. I am confident in my logic in a debate, but I accept, I not perfect, so I apologise for the confusion. Clearly I was the one questioning the integrity of the votes of User:The Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir and User:Peopleunite initially too. Really you can even delete those for all I care, I was most hurt my reply to User:Cyanhat is hatted, that was the crux for me. It's unfair to nit pick though on the technicalities of my comments and not address the core issue I have also raised too. And I believe it's a fair to inquire how user:Jbhunley discovered Ankit Love in America. If the answer is completely innocent then there would be no harm in knowing the source. And I concur there could be many viable explanations too as user:Jbhunley believes Ankit Love is not notable, perhaps he may have simply come across Ankit in real life.--Int Researcher (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The alternate explanation, which has the extra benefit of being true, is I came accross this article the last time someone tried to get it into Wikipedia. You should also read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love where I !voted KEEP! I voted !DELETE here becuase the chart I based my other vote on is not a chart Wikipedia accepts for notability, as was explained in my !vote here and by at least one other editor. You really should read background material like that. JbhTalk 11:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry User:Jbhunley. Yes I have gone through it now and can see that. I hope I did not cause you any offence. Unfortunately I found out too much about intelligence tactics before retiring, so perhaps sometimes I default to that. In that world you cannot trust anyone. Agents, double-agents and even triple agents. I have clearly spent so much time on researching this article, so it feels painful that my work will be deleted too. But we are all human here, until those AI bots do come. And perhaps you are right maybe all this information is better off on some blog. In any case I am terribly sorry, old sport. I know how it feels to have false accusations thrown at you when you are innocent, and it does hurt. So please do forgive me. I wish you and America all the best with liberty and justice for all! :-) Sorry.--Int Researcher (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. JbhTalk 13:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nom and as per closing administrator on previous AFD and salt.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This guy almost qualifies for recognition as a total failure as a candidate, but we lack adequate sources noticing him as such to justify such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Ankit Love stands for saving people from Air pollution, from homelessness, from being killed in Wars. NO ONE CARES ABOUT HIM says the mysterious editor in bold letters . What is this editor's notability. Ankit love has notability through out continents. America,Africa,Asia, Europe and Australia. Yes Millions of people may not know him as they surely do not know buffet or Mahatma Gandhi. Ankit Love sure is on right path and all young people have a right to boast. It is not harmful to any one. Ankit Love is not a fluke. I researched and found that he won Diana memorial Award in his high school. presented to him by a noble prize winner. He is a personality which is developing towards Peace.Justice and Love in the world. Love is not on trial here. Delete any body you hate but the editors have no right to dig the fangs in innocent souls and make them bleed. My mother never heard of Jimmy Wales neither more than 2/3 population of the world may have heard of him . That does not make him wannabe or narcissist for calling his site "It is like a temple for mind". watch out Jimmy and stop strange people bringing bad name to your site. And please do not waste peoples' hard earned money which they continue to give you in good faith. These editors definitely owe an apology to you and the contributors for going overboard in their bullying tactics and slurring the name of Wikipedia. The policies which are on wrong side of law cannot be kept. Strike them down. Do not play with peoples' mind. Let them pray in your temple.— Angeliceboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because of individual users' subjective impressions of their mission in life. A person qualifies for a Wikipedia article on the basis of reliable source coverage which verifies specific and quantifiable accomplishments that satisfy our notability criteria — but nothing which satisfies either part of that equation has been shown here at all. It's nice that you're inspired by him, but being your personal hero is not what gets a person an article on here. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "It is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others" , says Jimmy Wales on his foundation page while appealing for donations.. IS THIS THE POLICY: or is it special because faceless ,ill informed , egoistic editors are given a free run to break hearts and minds of budding leaders , struggling artists and good doers. While writing my keep vote I saw their desire to win this one-sided. one person,the creator of page is the only one allowed. all other keep votes are deleted or struck down. what are you scared off.? The fact is that Mohammad came out of the cave and said to people that the angel came and told him words of God. Christ said that he was son of God and is conveying message of God. Krishna said he was God himself. Billions of people follow them today. No one call them narcissists or wannabe or publicity mongers. Is it that earlier people were more tolerant than today's progressed world seems to be. Angeliceboy (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)— Angeliceboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Ok perhaps there is a place for hatting here User:Oshwah if we are getting comments like this. This needs to be redacted or even hatted. Please all new users getting involved in this debate stick too wikipedia policies in presenting arguments. I am really tired, I am going to stop debating now and withdraw. I am sure many will be happy about that too. Apologies if this got so heated. I do wish everyone the best, even user:Jbhunley, perhaps your intentions are pure and I read too much into it and your profile, knowing what i do about intelligence agencies. That could be a possibility too, I admit that. Who know's maybe even Ankit Love is not notable enough for wikipedia too, the London and Indian coverage on TV and in the news about him may all be just a shell. I can see that's a possibility too now, one must be open to all possibilities. Perhaps I was hoping too much for a solution to the complex conflicts in the Middle East and jumped onto this. I am really open minded now. In the end I am sure we are all working towards the truth and peace, or we wouldn't spend so much time here writing for free and I'm sure it will come in due course. Thank you and goodbye.--Int Researcher (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2016 (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. HappyValleyEditor is cautioned to check for sourcing and notability WP:BEFORE coming here, and is asked to stop stalking Jzsj's edits (lest they be viewed as having a personal agenda against them). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Justice and Faith[edit]

Centre for Justice and Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization, refs are largely self-published. Ref search does not turn up enough to support WP:ORG. Withdrawn, language confusion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well known in Quebec as the publisher of Revue Relations - best try to find it in French. It is not a coincidence that it was created on French Wikipedia before English Wikipedia. Pjposullivan (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also it was in Le Devoir - which I will go as far to say is one of the most influential newspapers in Quebec. No one gets a profile piece in Le Devoir for not being notable. Must admit, kind of surprised this is up for deletion. Pjposullivan (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Montreal and have never heard of it. If there are sources, let's add them. I will have another look.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The references I've added, are in French, so may not have turned up on the original ref search. For me, the UQAM and Le Devoir refs, are reliable independent secondary irreligious non-trivial sources that focus specifically on the centre (they are not mentions in passing). Pjposullivan (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I will WITHDRAW the AfD. I'm also going to rename the page to "Centre de Justice et foi", which is the actual name of the place.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea about the renaming thing, I should have done it a while back. Sorry, for the 'I'm surprised' comment earlier, I see that you're dealing with the spate of poorly-sourced Jesuit-linked articles. Good luck with sorting them out. Pjposullivan (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no worries at all... I should probably start reading Le Devoir. Are you saying that if someone is in Le Devoir once or twice, they're notable? I was in it twice, in significant mentions! Hahahah. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2016 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLIP Clinic[edit]

BLIP Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable student clinic at minor law school. The references are notices and press releases, from the customary array of unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saaif Alam's policy on Contributing to Voluntary Jury Duty Service Policy[edit]

Saaif Alam's policy on Contributing to Voluntary Jury Duty Service Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an essay. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The editor removed a WP:PROD notice without giving an explanation. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as the word "research" at the beginning pretty much gives it away. I would also note that the author is, apparently, said Saaif Alam. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I know we have to go through AFD because the author removed the prod, but I would support speedy delete on this one, under WP:SNOW if nothing else. Fieari (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as wikipedia isn't the place for original research (WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR). Uanfala (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom (I endorsed the original PROD). Also agree with User:Fieari that this qualifies as WP:SNOW. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious OR. Looie496 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitsquare[edit]

Bitsquare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently launched software, apparently still in beta, with no real evidence of notability. I count only 121 ghits, many of them not particularly relevant (searching for bitsquare bitcoin). Fails WP:GNG Andyjsmith (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Korea[edit]

Miss Grand Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG (and unsourced) The Banner talk 19:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to DIY audio. merge the objective material, not what seem to be statements of opinion. Better done by someone expert in the field, not by myself. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Op-amp swapping[edit]

Op-amp swapping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I almost hate to nominate this, because it's a nice article about a technical subject. Unfortunately, there's no good (i.e. WP:RS) sources, and this boils down to a mix of WP:HOWTO and WP:OR. Searching for the term op amp swapping, comes up with very few sources, all of which are blogs and other unreliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Merge as suggested by Mark viking would be a plausible WP:ATD, but the merged material should be mentioning that this practice exists, and describing it in brief, avoiding all of the HOWTO and OR of the current article.. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. --Mark viking (talk)
I disagree. What does the article say about swapping op amps in audio equipment? "there are very small, if any, audible differences between suitable op-amps." In other words, swapping op amps isn't going to make the audio device appreciably better, so swapping the part in the device for another one won't lead to an improvement. The practice is pointless. If there is improvement, then the device was not designed well, so WP shouldn't care about it. If the device needs repair, then one can replace the op amp with the same part and be done with it. In the alternative, there might be an equivalent op amp that would also serve -- but that is pretty standard repair practice. The material is not WP:DUE. Glrx (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree with you on all your technical points. The practice is pointless, but so are a lot of things in the audiophile community--witness all the myth and nonsense surrounding speaker wire that is discussed at Speaker wire#Quality debate. The question is, is this practice, whatever its merits, worth mentioning in the DIY article? To me, there are enough sources out there to demonstrate this practice exists and is worth a mention. But reasonable editors can disagree about whether it s notable enough to merit a mention. --Mark viking (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sourcing is a Pillar. The sources are WP:UNDUE so they have no right to WP's electronic ink. ("If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.") If you agree the practice is pointless but think existence merits coverage, then invoke WP:IAR to let this nonsense disappear. The speaker wire issue is much more prominent (and has more money behind it: a $1 op amp is not a $50 cable). Furthermore, there is not a raging debate that makes the issue important (e.g., equivalent of the oxygen-free copper debate). WP does not have a charter to cover everything. Glrx (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to DIY audio. Searching for op amp replacing or op amp ungrade yielded some more sources. Here are a Texas Instruments page, and products from Creative X-Fi, Creative Sound Blaster, and an op-amp upgrade kit for Gigabyte motherboards. Here are a couple of articles on the topic [1], [2]. Here is a review of a Burson op-amp upgrade kit. So it seems clear that there are reliable sources out there discussing various aspects of this practice. I don't know if these source add up to notability, as none discuss much the practice of upgrading, its impact, etc. as a whole. But there is enough verifiable material in RS to merge the basics into the more general DIY audio article, which could use the sources. --Mark viking (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is how to information (which is not WP's charter), and the article has misinformation. There's a generalization: "In properly-designed circuits, there are very small, if any, audible differences between suitable op-amps." Perhaps that is true, but it has the guarantor "suitable". The figure suggests that a bipolar μA741 and a JFET LF412 are interchangeable; sometimes yes, and sometimes no; input bias current and input offset current are much smaller for the JFET; JFET designs often skip offset current balancing. The statement "most op-amps have the same pinouts" is an oversimplification. The DIP8 pinout for a single opamp is different from the DIP8 pinout for a dual. Even when the pinout is the same, the voltage ratings may not be. A μA741 will take ±15 V supplies; many more modern opamps are designed for 5 V (e.g., MAX4336). A μA741 won't work in a 5V rail-to-rail design. There are gain issues. There are frequency compensation issues (LF356 and LF357 are closely related but not interchangeable). The information is unsourced (manufacturer drivel/blogs) and dubious, so a merge is not appropriate. Glrx (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with nom. The references are not about op-amp swapping but about op-amps that are pin-compatible and thus can be swapped, which is fundamentally different from a practise of swapping them to change perceived sound quality. DeVerm (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss further whether to delete or to selectively merge.  Sandstein  19:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Unless we use WP:IAR to add those blogs as reliable sources (which would never happen), there's no way this should be kept. Peter Sam Fan 19:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to DIY audio, as suggested. From what I can tell, there appear to be a decent amount of purely technical sources that document it very well, but don't really enable it to stand on it's own. It could very easily be converted into a section on DIY audio, as it itself is barely a section and a half of content, but it seems to be a fairly important concept in DIY audio modification. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to DIY audio and condense these paragraphs down to just two paragraphs on claims and scientific evaluation - the nwavguy post is good. -- Callinus (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. It'd be a shame to lose the good information in this article, even if the subject itself doesn't merit its own article (and it doesn't really). ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to DIY audio, which presently does not mention the topic. This will improve the merge target article. North America1000 07:36, 2 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Fletcher Crow[edit]

Donna Fletcher Crow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recommending deletion, as subject does not appear to be the recipient of non-trivial coverage from reliable, independent sources. The only coverage of substance I was able to locate was published as a press release via PR Newswire. There is a secondary concern that this article was created by an individual with a conflict of interest. It was added to Wikipedia by Pcrow (talk · contribs) on 19 July 2008‎ with later edits introduced by Donna Fletcher Crow (talk · contribs). Please do not hesitate to contact me if evidence of significant coverage is located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a few sources to article. More out there waiting to be hunted down, sifted form a haze of publisher's press releases. She clearly sells a lot of books. And gets a little press attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added some other sources as well, and started adding ISBN numbers to her bibliography. She has been reviewed in RS, has two non-trivial biographical pieces written about her and smaller pieces about her work in the news. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the added sources there is enough coverage to pass GNG. JbhTalk 15:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm concerned about how many current citations are behind various logins. Still, however, the author's coverage goes beyond just the local publications reporting on her work that you often sees in these kinds of biographical pages. She's also referred to by wider national publications and books such as this one, which go into her work in depth. The award from the National Federation of Press Women is a particularly interesting honor. The article probably still needs some work, but I think it passes the general notability bar. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ventin Group[edit]

The Ventin Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would've PRODed too, nothing actually solidly convincing from this current [hinting at promotional] article and thus still questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFS Copier[edit]

RFS Copier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable piece of software. A PROD tag was removed by an anonymous editor so I'm taking it here at AfD. Note that the links in the References section are in fact internal links to Wikipedia article (with the exception of a meaningless link to the main website of Microsoft. (And not that it matters much for deletion but the creator of the article is quite likely editing with a strong conflict of interest.) Pichpich (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. No sources found whatsoever, and this looks like an advertisement by students for their new technology. GABHello! 00:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - per nom. Non notable and no RS sources still. David.moreno72 (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not at all convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable software. Fails GNG. JbhTalk 15:13, 31 May 2016 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sweeting[edit]

Andrew Sweeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC with only primary sources. That the author describes Sweeting as "on the road to being known internationally" and someone to "be on the look out for" suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia biography. McGeddon (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other, equally-poorly sourced articles exist is an argument for deleting those articles, not for keeping this one. You need to show that Sweeting meets basic Wikipedia biography criteria. --McGeddon (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I might be wrong-but I believe this page has been deleted before. Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm seeing is a presumably unrelated db-nonsense "born on a pirate ship in 1423..." from 2007 and a (never deleted) user page about a sprinter at User:Andrew Sweeting Jr. --McGeddon (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might of been a similarly named page I saw then. Wgolf (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, and as a school athlete he doesn't meet WP:NTRACK. Can't find any secondary sources. Kolbasz (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched for sources. Could not trace any that can help this article reach GNG. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-per nom, also I believe this is a autobio. Wgolf (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More information on this athlete coming soon, this isn't a autobio, this is a bio about a athlete, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovoxandrew (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a high school athlete with potential but he has not yet achieved it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as there's nothing at all here for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 31 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 F91 Dudelange season[edit]

2012–13 F91 Dudelange season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The league that it plays in is not a fully professional league. Therefore, it fails WP:NSEASONS. Kingjeff (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable season, article has been clearly abandoned. GiantSnowman 07:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - club participated in the UEFA Champions League, the highest European club competition. Article could use some fixing, but AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated it because it really should be deleted regardless if someone wants to clean it up or not. Kingjeff (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nomination is incorrect, NSEASONS does not require a competition to be fully pro merely professional. However the Luxembourg league is amateur so the guideline is failed. Keep vote a over is also erroneous the club did not play in the champions league, merely the qualifiers. No indication the season has received significant ant reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NSEASONS as about an amateur team in an amateur league, that played in the qualifying stages only of the Champions' League. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the league is not a professional one and there's nothing else suggesting its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NSEASONS - the only substantive information in the article is already covered in the relevant articles for the European competitions in question. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 09:48, 1 June 2016 (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.  Sandstein  16:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Baker (actor)[edit]

Robert Baker (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor. No major roles to demonstrate notability. Natg 19 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:Entertainer. The guideline recommends that actors who have had "significant roles in multiple notable television shows..." may be kept. Bob has appeared in 8 episodes of Valentine (the TV series) and 13 episodes of Grey's Anatomy. There is a significant probability of sources being available. One should add and develop this article rather than delete. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep have added refs to the article so it is no longer unsourced, his roles have generated enough media attention for WP:BASIC to be met. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, few reasons why he's notable. His work speaks for itself. And as Dr. Charles Percy, he has achieved a nice degree of recognition. I've come across certain glossy magazines that I would never be caught buying. They feature and have stuff on him and his character on the show. These are in waiting rooms. I never would have looked at them otherwise. Karl Twist (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Draft instead at best as I'm not entirely convinced there's solid independent notability here with the longest work only being 13 episodes. We can wait for better. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, even though the article certainly needs more to make it worthwhile, I look at the volume of work he has done. Sure he did just 13 episodes for the television series, Grey's Anatomy, but I've noticed something that I overlooked the other day. Maybe it was just recently added. He has in fact appeared on the show for a period that spans at least 6 years. The first episode as per Imdb, was Invasion Season 6, Episode 5 which aired 16 February 2010. The latest Unbreak My Heart Season 12, Episode 11 aired this year on 25 February 2016. He's done quite well there. Looking at the reoccurring roles he's had, he's had 2 as Bob Payne in the latter day series of Dragnet. He's had 2 as Priest in Six Feet Under. He did all 8 episodes in the short lived series Valentine. He was one of the main actors. He had appeared as Randall Kusik in Justified 3 times in 2013. He also appeared in Texas Rising as Bigfoot Wallace. He did 5 episodes here. In True Blood, he played Mack and appeared in episodes: Jesus Gonna Be Here, I Found You, and Fire in the Hole. So take that, 7 television shows that have reoccurring roles for him, that certainly speaks for itself. Looking at the Imdb discussion board for him and you can see he has been noticed. To be truthful and with the research I've done, I would have been mightily surprised if he was nominated for deletion if his Wikipedia page was up to scratch. But it's not! That's the main issue. Again this is another example of a page that has been created by an enthusiastic and well-meaning person / editor but hasn't got enough info and refs. So I stand solid by my vote to keep the article. However, I ask and hope that some folks take the time to improve it and lift it up to where it should be. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NACTOR 1 and possibly 2, clearly notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:37, 1 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Mahmood[edit]

Arif Mahmood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. Only a primary source found. The coverage I found included a Malaysian executive of the same name and also a criminal LibStar (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lack of sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing suggesting his only solidly independently notable article, there's nothing else convincing to suggest solid improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 31 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlackMattersUS[edit]

BlackMattersUS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cursory earch shows insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:WEB, or WP:ORG. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • this article needs to be improved and it is not finished yet, so I need time to find more information and I ask not to delete it so quick, may be other users can help to improve it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrtn (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. This organisation may well become notable, but it doesn't seem to be the subject of significant coverage yet. None of the independent sources cited in the article actually mention BlackMattersUS by name. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Website began in late November 2015 according to a WHOIS search on blackmattersus.com. As this is a news outlet focusing entirely on internet medium, this indicates they haven't been in operation for long. Date headers appear to have been manipulated, but take that with a grain of salt. A good tip for anyone searching for sources to look for content and coverage of blackmatterus.com published past Nov 23, 2015 through Google Advanced Search and Google News. There is no indication that this organization is notable whatsoever, even within the audience that it caters to. Based on my searches, there is no way whatsoever that any other users can contribute in terms of reliable secondary sources that can cite notability and reliably. Cyanhat (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I searched, and cannot find reliable, secondary sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The HuffPo source does not mention BlackMattersUS (or "Black Matters US"... or any other permutation of the name). RA0808 talkcontribs 11:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:42, Samrtn. A single link in a news article does not constitute significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification of my comment: the article does link to the website, but the organization is not actually named. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as newly started, nothing at all actually suggesting the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 31 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Watch (band)[edit]

Neighborhood Watch (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band does not meet inclusion criteria. No external refs, and has sat since 2006 waiting for some. SimonP (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2016 (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 Prcedural close. Already deleted by Ponyo (talk · contribs) as noted in their comment below. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anum Fayyaz[edit]

Anum Fayyaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR with no reliable secondary sources, just broken links, database entries and press releases. Does not appear to have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows". McGeddon (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EE Power[edit]

EE Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently founded online publication, lacks reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Search doesn't turn up anything. Source currently listed (at time of nomination) is a PR site. RA0808 talkcontribs 14:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 14:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PR reference removed. WP:GNG and WP:WEB are satisfied by Napier reference. Site available in search results. Jonsu88 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources found that show notability. The existing source looks like it is based on a press release, and it is in any case a brief mention which would not meet WP:SIGCOV even if it were independent. --bonadea contributions talk 15:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like a sort of WP:TOOSOON thing.. the magazine was founded this year, so I'm not surprised to see no recognition from other sources anywhere. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as by far clearly too soon, founded only a few months is not going to summarily suggest any notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 31 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Miller signature Fender Jazz Bass[edit]

Marcus Miller signature Fender Jazz Bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced article about non-notable, now-discontinued commercial product. Mikeblas (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's nothing but catalog entries and guitar forum posts/reviews out there. I would probably invoke WP:NOT a directory. MisterRandomized (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all suggesting this can be assumed as independently notable from his own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 31 May 2016 (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 Deleted as G12 (Copyright violation). — Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Island Amusement Park[edit]

Enchanted Island Amusement Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted article by wiki Czerny santos (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enchanted Island Amusement Park

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Hands (band)[edit]

Rough Hands (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Given sources do not seem especially reliable (one is a Tumblr), and Google does not offer anything in support of meeting WP:BAND. —swpbT 13:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources are unconvincing & can't find better.TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see that much information out there on them. When they get touched on by reliable sources, it's something like these two articles here where their name is dropped and that's it. No details. I'm not even sure if those two stories are referring to the same group (and if they're both the same as the one described in this page). The band's material hasn't charted anywhere. They haven't received praise from any notable musicians. This seems like a clear-cut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Karasic[edit]

Dan Karasic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No RS's to pass GNG or PROF. Long tagged with multiple issues. Searches reveal only SPS's and brief mentions. Barcaboy2 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried searching (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22dan%20karasic%22), but find only generic profiles, such as LinkedIn and WebMD. He has been quoted in some reliable media outlets, but none says he himself has "made significant impact" (so no PROF-1). Nor does has any article been coverage or an article about him (so, no GNG). He was an officer in a small group (for LGBT psychiatrists), but nothing that could be called a "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" (no PROF-3) or any "major academic society" (no PROF-6). He co-edited a book, but nothing like an entire journal (no PROF-8). He has belonged to groups that work to make a "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity," but I can't find any RS that says that he himself has (no PROF-7). For GNG, again, he has been quoted in some RS's, but nothing with "significant coverage" of him.Barcaboy2 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Barcaboy's indepth analysis of why he does not meet any of the listed ways to qualify for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. NOTE TO CLOSING EDITOR: There also appears to be a deletion "vote" that was put the page instead of here. — James Cantor (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  16:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehman Aliyev[edit]

Mehman Aliyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing currently actually suggesting better for any applicable notability such as WP:GNG, my searches have only found news mentions at News, nothing else convincing of solid independent notability and its improvements. Listed award is not convincing of actually keeping this. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting very used to this nominator's impenetrable use of English, but the statement that he "only found news mentions at News" must take the biscuit as one of the most absurd that I have seen in a deletion nomination. What else would we expect to find at "News"? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I should note this IP has hounded me including after I specifically asked for them to cease, they have nothing but grossly unnecessary criticisms. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have desisted from posting on your talk page since you said that I was unwelcome there, but you have no right to prevent me from taking part in deletion discussions, and pointing out logical errors in statements made there. If you want to avoid criticism then just stop acting in a way that deserves criticism, as many people have been advising you to do for many years. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually any heated and vulgar comments at me are prohibited anywhere, 86.17.222.157, please see WP:HOUNDING and please take this as a formal warning to not incessantly hound me. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out errors is not hounding. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but hounding me at every place and saying the exact opposite thing like the comment above is. Simply face it, you obviously have a disdain for me and yet you continue, so I firmly ask to stay away from that regardless. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, please don't take this as "hounding", but I genuinely can't make out what you are asking of me. If you are asking me not to take part in the same deletion discussions as you then the answer has to be "no", because no participant has the right to pick and choose who else should take part in a discussion. If you are asking me not to point out errors in your statements or ask for clarification when I can't understand them then it's also a "no", because that is an important part of the discussion process. I will, however, try to word my comments in a gentler way if they upset you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(apologies to anyone else reading this for conducting a private conversation here, but SwisterTwister has asked me not to post on his talk page, so I couldn't post there) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Okay, deciphering TwistedSister's comment "only news found in News" seems to mean that there are plenty of sources showing news about other things that were written/directed/edited by this person, but none that are ABOUT this person. So that opens the question, is a prolific WRITER of news who has won an award regarding that writing considered notable? I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here, especially since the subject is from a non-English news source, and it's a good idea to fight systemic bias in this area. Fieari (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The results of the Google News search linked in the nomination statement are mostly sources neither written/directed/edited by this person nor about this person, but are independent sources that quote this person. The fact that there are 16 such sources found in English would lead me to suspect that there must be many more in Azerbaijani and Russian, which, if it could be shown, would lead to a pass of WP:JOURNALIST criterion 1, "widely cited by peers or successors". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the news note: This person seems to be a regularly quoted figure in a number of Azerbaijani/East European news outlets, where he is often identified as head of the Turan news agency. ("Mehman Aliyev" with quotes searched in Google News) I see similar results in Scholar, (I know, limiting my search to google, what a plebeian thing to do), and from this I would conclude that he is considered to have some facet of authority with regard to domestic and foreign Azerbaijani political topics. I can't vote either way just yet, but if I find anything I'll post it/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NJOURNALIST. The English sources (not just their number, but the context) indicate a certain level of notability which clears the GNG, and I'm taking it on trust that a lot more sources would be found in the original languages; someone doesn't become a less notable commentator just because they aren't often cited in the Western media. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:49, 1 June 2016 (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 one sort-of-"keep" isn't really understandable.  Sandstein  16:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pazhayar Sree Dharmasastha Temple[edit]

Pazhayar Sree Dharmasastha Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since 2 years, non-notable local temple claiming no notability failing WP:GNG. PROD declined stating no reason. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is meant for maintaining a continuous support for the temple. It is one of the oldest temple @ chengannur , Kerala. I think we have enough genuinity & evidences from attached links below the page proving that the page should not be considered for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopunair (talk • contribs) 06:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "maintaining a continuous support"? Please note that Wikipedia should not be used for advocacy and propaganda of any sorts. The links present at the end of the article are all Facebook links and fb pages can be created by anyone. You should read WP:GNG and provide evidence of how the temple is notable for WP standards. I have now noticed that you have created many articles on similar such temples which do not claim any notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's apparently one of the oldest locally but, as expected with these subjects, there's not always the transparency of sourcing availability thus nothing for a better article and its notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:50, 24 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BB Centrum[edit]

BB Centrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Does not even come close to meeting WP:GEOFEAT. The fact that it was accepted by Czech Wikipedia does not mean it meets our notability requirements. ubiquity (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's not surprising the local Wiki would keep it but it's by far not at all minimally notable for an article here, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:GNG. the Czech version of this article has very limited sourcing too. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GEOLAND is the guideline here as this is some sort of subdivision -- now totalling 17 buildings according to the official site. But I agree there's no real coverage. 19:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:GEOLAND is indecisive when the area is not legally recognized, which seems to be the case here, and falls back on the WP:GNG, requiring "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" to demonstrate notability. ubiquity (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh yes and I'm not arguing to keep. Simply wanted to point out that this is not a single feature but some form of district. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Chapter 8 (album). Clear consensus to not keep as a stand-alone article. Opinion split between merge and redirect. I'm calling this a merge, but observe that the target already has maybe as much as should be said about this particular song. So, leaving it up to whoever does the merge to figure out how much additional material to bring, or maybe just leave it as a redirect if that feels right. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for Your Love (Chapter 8 song)[edit]

Ready for Your Love (Chapter 8 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I searched for sources discussing this song. I found very little coverage in each sources. Despite being on the charts, the song fails to meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NSONGS. Either delete it or redirect it to Chapter 8 (album). Some content is already copied there. Also, it was created merely to distinguish itself from Ready for Your Love (Gorgon City song). George Ho (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Chapter 8 (album) with no prejudice to recreating the article if more content can be found. As is, all of the existing content can safely be upmerged, I think. SnowFire (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1979 first single of Anita Baker, most successful single of Chapter 8 (band), coverage in bios of both Anita Baker and Chapter 8. The fact that another song reused the same name in 2014 - and charted less well in US than this did - isn't a reason to delete a 1979 song. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But giving the Gorgon City song brackets was the only reason this song's article was created. Unreal7 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When new media products appear and take up residence over older material - in this case more represented in books and higher charting in US - the new WP:RECENT product shouldn't obscure or deny existing material even if our coverage is weighted to the latest producrs. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IIO, when will you get the message? Absolutely NO ONE agrees with your sentiments. Unreal7 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the album Chapter 8, as this song is not notable. Unreal7 (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And redirect Ready for Your Love (Gorgon City song) ? Why is only the recent one notable? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it charted, because it is popular, because more than 6 people know who Gorgon City are, and because no one agrees with you. You created this article solely to put brackets on the Gorgon City song, which sounds a lot like vandalism to me, and vandals get blocked. Unreal7 (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not vandalism. It's great that In inctu oculi added sourced content to Wikipedia, which is what keeps it going. This is merely a matter of organization of content; articles on notable topics that are very short should be merged to larger articles. Thanks to redirects, no content is lost, it's just easier to keep track of. If some day someone can find enough sources & relevant content on the Chapter 8 song, then it might be reasonable to split it out again, just that day is not today. SnowFire (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects also work with Ready for Your Love (Buddy Greco album) and Ready for Your Love (Shep and the Limelites song). It's inevitable that en.wp weights to what is WP:RECENT but such is life. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as not particularly independently notable, best connected to the other article. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:SwisterTwister as long as it connects to all 3 articles - the first charting single of Chapter 8 (band), the first notable single of Anita Baker before her solo career, the lead single of Chapter 8 (album). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Db30YcDlg In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:49, 24 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Dabi[edit]

Tina Dabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Tina Dabi looks to be a "low-profile" person. Although there's sourcing for her being a "topper" I don't think this is sufficient for a standalone article. Tina and the other top scorers are already listed at Civil Services Examination#Annual highest scorers. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It says something when most of the article pertains simply to her family and education. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tina Dabi page is not just about one event. There are many similar pages like this but once there are ample third party credible sources , it can be created. Same have been done for many new cricketers, players whose pages have been created. Apart from being UPSC topper, its the hard working and inspiring story of Tina of being an incredible Dalit girl which is the main factor for creating the page.--Juneymb (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above user blocked as a sockpuppet of the earlier keep !voter. —SpacemanSpiff 13:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tina Dabi Being a daughter of highly qualified parents, having all advantages best school, best college & elite socialization, she opted reservation thats preserved for economically, socially & educationally backward people. She was trying to enter civil services through the porous & loopholes of the Indian constitution. Becoming topper is an accident. She qualified the first stage exam through reservation. She is not a caste girl. She is a high class top girl with availed with all best advantages possible in India, despite that she opted reservation, thats extremely unethical, immoral & opportunistic. She doesn't stand to the hight of minimum decency,as she deserves reservation in no way. Reservation meant for extremely poor students of this third word India.Tina Dabi should explain the human race that she is backward, marginalised & economically disadvantaged having IES Father & IES Mother. She qualified preliminary exam through reservation, here is the link of her marks obtained. She was not qualifying the preliminary exam itself without reservation. She scored 96.66 against general category cut-off was 107.34. Paper-2 was just qualifying, its mark is not considered. http://www.qmaths.in/2016/05/upsc-2015-prelims-marks-released-tina-dabi-sc-cat.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloso83 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peter James below makes a good argument why a redirect is unnecessary. 99% of people who search her name will do so because they know she topped the exam and want more information about her. So taking the reader to a list that does nothing more than confirm the fact she topped the exam is rather pointless. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, what is the "inherent non-neutrality for such a redirect from a BLP". She was clearly eported by reliable sources as a "topper". Is there some controversy over that fact? --Bejnar (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she is notable according to our guidelines, even if only for one event, a redirect excludes information that belongs in her article just because it doesn't belong in the Civil Services Examination article. If not notable, there shouldn't be a redirect at all. Whether neutrality is an issue or not, I would still support deletion if not retained as a separate article as there's only a name in a list there, not even a paragraph. Peter James (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was both amazed and amused yesterday to find a page on the name of this year's upsc exam topper. Really? A wikipedia page on the name of an exam topper? Why not separate pages for 2nd ranker, 3rd ranker, 4th ranker and so on. Are they less deserving? Why not a separate wikipedia page for every topper for every year's upsc exam since this exam was made open for Indian nationals. Then why upsc exam alone, why not a page for IIT-JEE topper, CAT topper, AIIMS topper? I know IAS toppers who have resigned from their job and now are devoted to public service by various other means. Some of them have done exemplary work after they resigned from service (Anyone knows Harsh Mander or Sanjeev Sabhlok?). All this unfounded frenzy around this year's topper will settle down soon. As for exam toppers, what they do with their career later in their life will decide whether they deserve a wikipedia page or not. My humble request - let us not make something as pure and pristine as wikipedia a place for politics and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IK2P (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC) — IK2P (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as not actually convincing of an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bejnar and Chris. More significantly, the vote above by Gloso83 shows exactly why the article should not exist for someone who would rather keep a low profile. Let’s not ruin a biography by making it a coatrack for other issues. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single events, that too about an exam do not warrant a wiki entry. ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE THIS ARTICLE THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG. SHE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING GREAT AND HAS JUST TAKEN UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF THE RESERVATION POLICY. -- 199.253.242.3 (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2016‎ (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayan Astronomers[edit]

Mayan Astronomers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I question the notability of this subject since it may seem to fail WP:GNG

ice hockey notability guideline: WP:NHOCKEY Daniel kenneth (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:ORG is the relevant guideline here (WP:NSPORT doesn't apply to teams). I can't find significant independent coverage, so fails those criteria. —  crh 23  (Talk) 15:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article because the other three teams of the Liga Mexicana Élite all had articles. They should be considered as a set, not in isolation. Cobblet (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since they were in the top league for their sport in their (large) nation. BTW the Washington Redskins might consider something for this if they decide to change their name, maybe the "Native American Agriculturalists". Borock (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Djsasso. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 13:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I could now see (due to me checking WP:NHOCKEY again) that this is now notable because it is in a top level league even though the particle of content that it now has is not worth keeping without the aforementioned criteria. Daniel kenneth (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (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 "keep" opinions merely assert inherent notability, mostly without explaining how this view has a basis in policy or practice, and more importantly without discussing the BLP concerns raised.  Sandstein  16:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majed Abdulaziz Al-Saud[edit]

Majed Abdulaziz Al-Saud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are many Saudi Arabian princes and they are not inherently notable. This particular article falls afoul of WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:BLPCRIME. There doesn't appear to be any notability outside of this single event. Additionally, the negative tone verges on being an attack page. BLP articles should be very careful when it comes to unsubstantiated rumors of illegal behavior. clpo13(talk) 15:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indeed there are many Saudi Arabian princes but they are inherently notable as Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy where each prince can be considered to hold national or international office, making articles about them inherently as valid as a US Senator or UK Minister of Parliament. Especially here when the media coverage has conferred significant notability on a high-profile criminal act and meets guidelines regarding reliable sources, which I think it has. Sheepy Shoo (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revise to remove extremely negative tone. I agree that the Prince may be notable, probably meriting a stub article at this point. The article, however, is currently a borderline attack page. R. A. Simmons Talk 14:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clarify that I support a keep vote if and only if there is a pretty big overhaul regarding tone. R. A. Simmons Talk 13:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as whether or not all Saudi princes can be found notable, this is still questionable for better even with considering removing parts of the article, there's simply nothing else convincing to actually keep. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep • ArtsRescuer 14:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
@ArtsRescuer: Can you elaborate on why the article should be kept? Remember that AFDs aren't a vote. clpo13(talk) 22:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]
He is notable because he is a prince • ArtsRescuer 22:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC) ArtsRescuer has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of Shafinusri - SummerPhDv2.0 22:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many Saudi princes, but princes are still notableDeathlibrarian (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly start over - This page is currently a WP:COATRACK, apparently written to disparage the subject. That was the reason for its speedy deletion 2 months ago when created by the same editor. Please note in a similar case, there was no finding of inherent notability of the hundreds of Saudi princes. There is nothing to salvage here. If, and this is unlikely, notability can be demonstrated beyond the WP:BLP1E case presented here, the article can be recreated. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are real BLP concerns here, but more convincing is the link posted by SummerPhDv2.0 above to an almost identical AfD where the consensus was that an individual Saudi prince wasn't automatically notable merely by dint of being a Saudi prince, and the crime stuff doesn't pass WP:CRIMINAL or WP:BLP1E. I'm loath to wander into WP:OTHERSTUFF territory but in this instance I think looking at other directly comparable examples is instructive - it seems fair to take that as a precedent on this occasion when it comes to whether being a Saudi prince clears the GNG. Seems to me we either have the full set, or else none unless they have the sources to establish independent notability beyond their royal status, and consensus already seems to have moved towards the latter. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:59, 1 June 2016 (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 "keep" opinions do not address the policy-level problems alleged in the nomination. The statement "Having poor sources or lack of sources is not grounds for deletion" is directly at odds with the core policy WP:V.  Sandstein  19:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rap Battle Parodies[edit]

The Rap Battle Parodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of it is original research. No indication notability All the references are primary references. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Having poor sources or lack of sources is not grounds for deletion. None of the deletion criteria at WP:DEL#REASON, including #6 and #7, apply to this article. Just needs some TLC. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
notability has to be established. If you can establish notability, I will be glad to withdraw my nomination. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 7 videos in four years, especially when they have been deleted twice by the creator, does not indicate notability; existence is not notability. MSJapan (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 11:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that one of the videos have been heavily popularized as an internet meme that is still used to this day definitely justifies some notability and reason to keep the article. Some additions would be welcome however. Lucasstar1 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 12:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator withdrew his nomination (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Basile[edit]

Nick Basile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has not demonstrated proper notability, in addition to having no third-party references, with the only citations being home pages for projects the individual has been involved with. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 11:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed the page creator has been adding advertising materials, such as links and minor awards, to Alexandra Breckenridge, Whitney Able and Joe Dante. Maybe a thorough read of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion would be useful. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 11:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's nothing convincing for the applicable notability and my searches have found only a few links with none of them being convincing for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete as I have added more third party references and sources to validate the notability of this article including citations from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Fangoria, Screen Media Films and Deadline.com. Quatticapic talk 19:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All those references are about the film Dark, but there's nothing in them that lends to notable credibility for the subject matter of the filmmaker himself. If anything, they lend to the credibility of the film Dark, meaning that they should have been applied to your draft for the film that wasn't approved. Also, there's beyond a reasonable doubt that you yourself are Nick Basile, as quite literally all your edits have been for advertising. Please familiarize yourself with the conflict of interest guidelines. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the references I submitted are valid and article submissions factual. What would you suggest would further validate this article's notability? Please advise. Thanks. Quatticapic talk 23:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed factual and notable, which lends credence to the subject matter of Dark, but there really isn't anything in them that enforces that Nick Basile himself is worthy of inclusion, as they're comprehensively about the project. I'd recommend another shot at a draft for Dark and make the references in-line, rather than what you have on this page. There's a chance Dark could in fact have a shot at inclusion, but I can't endorse the subject matter of the filmmaker himself. But, if you are in fact Nick Basile, this may be out of your hands, as Wikipedia COI policy states that the subject matter themselves, nor those personally connected, may contribute to associated pages. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not trying to bully or beat your up or anything; I just am following the rules. I know a number of individuals who are behind great projects on Wikipedia who have asked me for help with certain information, but I can't really throw them a bone, as I myself have a COI. We could look at Dark again, as perhaps your formatting and COI put you in a bad position for having it approved, but maybe I could see what I can do for it. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I would greatly appreciate that DarthBotto. Thank you.Quatticapic talk 20:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. In the meantime, remember that any articles connected to you, whether they're projects or collaborators, you cannot get involved with the content of the pages. For example, if we find that there is a page for Dark and you see content that disagrees with your perspective, you are recommended to go to either the associated talk page, or the WikiProject Film's talk page and state your connection with said page and suggest changes. But you're welcome to stay active with Wikipedia and encouraged to edit anything else. ;) DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Directing one significant film may no be notability , but directing several of them is. It seems from the sources that "Dark" is notable, tho it does not yet have an article,and a n earlier film won an award. Filmmakers become notable for producing notable films. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that Dark could have potential for a Wikipedia article, so long as it is not written by Nick Basile/Quatticapic, but that example for a previous award doesn't exactly hold water, considering it was a single minor award for a short film. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: I've actually decided that DGG's logic is sound and I'd like to withdraw my nomination. With the sources available, I can probably rewrite the article into something noteworthy. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 10:15, 1 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Fitzpatrick[edit]

Evan Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur player of no particular accomplishments, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Unsourced article created by User talk:Drizzy85, whose talk page is studded by several dozen notifications of CSDs, prodding and AfDs of a raft of unreferenced one-sentence sub-stub creations. Ravenswing 09:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's way too soon for there to be an article about this player given that he has never played a professional game at any level. Deadman137 (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Sleeping bag. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 23:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modular Sleep System[edit]

Modular Sleep System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally created this article although now I do not believe it is notable enough to be an article. Moreover there is not a good place to merge this. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be worth a mention on sleeping bag, none of the text here would be suitable really. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article useful. Why would it be deleted? It is unbiased and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.28.133 (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Selective Merge to sleeping bag, which presently has no mention of this topic. This will improve the merge target article. The topic has received some coverage (see below), but possibly not enough to qualify for a standalone article. North America1000 04:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

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. Filer is a sock who is now blocked. No legitimate reason presented for deletion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alf Henrikson[edit]

Alf Henrikson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not acceptable beacause created by banned user ,spi case pending Rftyhuj (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notsonoisy[edit]

Notsonoisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourced by unreliable sources. Doesn't show why the person/company is notable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delsort
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 24 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Small Business Contest[edit]

Microsoft Small Business Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this as a WP:G11 speedy, but I wouldn't say that it's unambiguous promotion. However the main issue is that I don't particularly see where this contest is notable enough for an article. There's very little coverage about the event and what is out there tends to be along the lines of local articles about various winners, primary sources, and offhand mentions or junk hits.

I'm open to a merge, but I'm not entirely sure where this would be merged to offhand. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per WP:CRYSTAL, without prejudice to recreating it when substantial coverage begins. This has gone on long enough, and the arguments to delete outweigh the arguments to keep. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2024[edit]

AfDs for this article:
United States presidential election, 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rename to "Speculation about the United States presidential election, 2024" or "United States presidential election, 2024 barrel scrapings". But really, this is some serious WP:CRYSTALBALL type stuff here. Having an article on this is like having an article on a TV show season that is two seasons ahead of the one currently being filmed. "The subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". United States seems to be the only country with an election article this far into the future. For those who still don't understand, imagine a different country, one more prone to war, has an article just like this one. But war happens so they don't have any elections for that year. What do you think would happen to that article?

Analysis of the information in the article and the sources: (What's in parenthesis is new Wickypedoia (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  • [3] Who cares? (Article says: "According to an election calendar of Essex County, Virginia, Virginia has scheduled a presidential primary for March 5, 2024, subject to the primary being actually held." I don't think most people give a damn, seems clear to me that this was just another factoid added try to "beef up" this article. How is it not?)
  • [4] Opinion piece by Howard Gutman, not an actual reporter. (Article says: "Gutman believed either Ken Salazar or Julian Castro would be likely contenders." Doesn't seem to be an "authority" on US election/politics or be known for his political opinions if you check out his article. Tell me how much more this adds than if it were some random non-notable person?)
  • [5] Doesn't seem to have anything about this specific election despite the title.
  • [4] Book that I don't have access to.
  • [5] Seems to be scraped from one sentence of 21 page document on page 9. Okay for details, not for establishing notability.
  • [6] Seems that you have to pay to get full assess, but it's likely more barrel scrapping. Article says "In a study of the implications of redistribution of electors in 2024...blah blah, half of source's abstract", but the source's abstract says "Using ...blah blah, I show that by 2024... blah blah" (Source is from 2009, title has 2010 and 2020 census, could apply to several elections, so it wasn't just "a study of the implications of redistribution of electors in 2024" that the article makes it seem. That relatively large quote from the abstract furthers skews the source's perceived importance and relevancy to the reader.)
  • [7] Zzz (Source says: "This would result in minor changes to the Electoral College in 2024" yay something relevant! Someone put a sentence about the source in the article, any little thing that can be found helps I guess. Maybe more can be said? I don't want to find that out.)
  • [8] Getting an WP:OR vibe from the paragraph that uses this as a source. Article says "in the 2024 election", but the source doesn't seem reference or be specific to the 2024 US presidential election. (Similar to [6])
  • [9], [10], [11] Ah, a "In popular culture" section. Maybe we can described them as "declared (fictional)" candidates? (I don't know how relevant fictional characters campaign announcements are to real elections. Also the NYDN source says "Flashing forward to 2020, Geraldo Rivera announced that Jeb Bush had just been re-elected to a second term", and since he has dropped out this would be a case of WP:Unreliable speculation. And the NYT piece just seems like another thing that can be added to a "In popular culture" section, but not to notability.) Wickypedoia (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-signing this nomination I am doing this because LavaBaron is attempting to get this nomination quashed because the nominator had been indef'd. The reasoning above is sound, no matter what the ultimate disposition of the account that proffered it has been. I agree with it in all parts, and thus sign my name to the reasoning, and so choose to co-sign this nomination as my own. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 05:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin - note that this editor appears to have !voted multiple times in this AfD, part of a pattern of unusual situations with this AfD, beginning with its creation by an indeffed editor and including the fact it is a re-nom of an 84-day closed AfD. Also note that by "co-signing" the indeff'ed account's nom they are signing on to have the article renamed, not deleted (which is one of their other !votes), as per the wording of the nom. LavaBaron (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin - note that this editor is trying to scuttle an AFD nomination that is not going the way they'd like purely on procedural grounds. Note also that I'm simply endorsing the reasoning of the nomination, not intending for this to be an extra !vote. AFDs are a discussion, and editors aren't precluded from participating in that discussion multiple times. If they were, LavaBaron himself would have run afoul of such a stipulation long ago, as his username appears up and down this page, haranguing those with whom he disagrees. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 13:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You currently have one !vote for "Rename" and one !vote for "Delete." It's fine to comment multiple times - that's the meaning of a discussion which is what WP is about - but !voting multiple is a real pain. But, if you insist you need to !vote multiple times, please at least make sure all of your ballots read the same. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should really stop doing this kind of thing. My note here was simply an endorsement of the nomination as valid, since you seemed to be attempting to scuttle the AFD that isn't going your way through pettifoggery regarding WHO made the nomination. The endorsement doesn't change my recommendation that this article be deleted, and I think it's clear that the "rename" portion of the original nomination was a (slightly petty) way of demonstrating how ludicrous the existence of such a WP:CRYSTALBALL article really is. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Abort AfD, Block Nominator - (a) Known, most likely, to this 30-day old account, is the fact that Coffee just closed an AfD on this article as Keep 90 days ago. As Staszek Lem noted at the time "the article clearly explains its notability" while Jakec observed that there was "already significant analysis of the election, so it's notable" and 4meter4 explained "it's also clear that their are significant and reliable sources already discussing the prospects of the 2024 election" and Curro2 said "if we have articles on future elections, we should have an article for this". For these reasons, and more, we should Keep the article. (Plus we should not continuously AfD articles until we get our desired outcome.) (b) This is a malformed AfD as the nominator isn't even asking for deletion but for renaming. The AfD should, therefore, be aborted. Finally, (c) In this account's month-old history it's already been blocked by Smalljim once for disruption and this appears to be another attempt at disrupting the encyclopedia; given the fact of the recent failed AfD of this article - and the highly combative tone of this AfD - account is most probably a sock of an aggrieved participant in the first AfD. LavaBaron (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you are right, but prefer to keep the discussion here on the deletion proposal; and not on the nominator. I suggest you take any sock puppet allegations to the appropriate forum at wp:SPI... L.tak (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any allegation, only an observation. LavaBaron (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in the context you wrote them in, I perceived them as such... The suggestion however still stands for your observation. Especially because you proposed/suggested/!voted to block to proposer, I thought of what would be the best place to achieve that.. L.tak (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually closed as "no consensus" as noted below. And articles that have been kept may still get deleted later on. I have provided a new analysis of the article, I would like it if anyone suggesting "keep" respond to that. I don't think I've came across as "highly combative" in this AfD, I was joking when I said to rename. Also please "keep" the discussion on topic, open an "Editors for condemnation" if you think you have a case ;) Wickypedoia (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the high level of WP:DUCK that's going on here, yes, I am tracking your edits now and, yes, a case will be opened soon. I apologize if I distracted from this specific AfD, though, despite its inane silliness. LavaBaron (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck Wickypedoia (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron you say "I haven't made any allegation". Yet you said "account is most probably a sock". That is an unquestionable personal attack. Per WP:NPA "Serious accusations require serious evidence". AusLondonder (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anybody who needs to be blocked, it's you, @LavaBaron:. You badgered the hell out of the last AfD with keepist comments and it looks like you'll do that on this one too. The previous AfD was closed as No Consensus and it's fine to reopen a No Consensus AfD after three months. pbp 05:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chillax, User:Purplebackpack89 and User:AusLondonder - the nom has now been successfully blocked indefinitely from WP. Don't beat yourselves up, it happens. LavaBaron (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "successfully blocked"? Should we roll out the "Mission Accomplished" banner? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Athomeinkobe: @Purplebackpack89: @AusLondonder: Regarding your messages to @LavaBaron: What does he mean by successfully blocked? The Nominator was the type of person who would switch Hillary Clinton's and Donald Trump's article pages, for the fun of it. A "Mission Accomplished" banner seems to be in order. While proof of sockpuppeting may not be achievable, the Nominator's subtle vandalism practices are obvious. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | ──╤╦︻ GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 04:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, we should indeed. Successfully protecting the encyclopedia from vandals is always a cause for celebration. "Mission accomplished!" LavaBaron (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see what has changed since last time. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an analysis of the article content and each of the sources that I had access to, I don't think the latter was done in the previous AfD. Wickypedoia (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close I agree this article is non-notable (the census changes are, but that is another story), but we are not in the business of reopening AFDs every few months.... If it were 2017, this would be a valid renom, but within half a year... L.tak (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is not much substantive that can be said about this election at this time, nor is it likely that anything substantive will be available to be said for a quite a while. For comparison, United States presidential election, 2012 was deleted seven times, and the article was only accepted in November 2008 when the election was only four years ahead. This election is more than eight years away. I would also note that the prior AfD closed as "no consensus to delete, default to keep", rather than as a proper "keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Dimadick said in the AfD of 84 days ago, "this is already getting some decent coverage by sources. I see no reason for deletion" - LavaBaron (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I would love to see that if it exists. Any links, please? Wickypedoia (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, the prior AfD was closed as no consensus. This seems like a perfectly appropriate re-nomination to me. I always support keeping articles for future elections. But that's because people usually exercise some restraint and don't create articles for the next next election. Of course WP:GEOBIAS is relevant here. If someone created an article for the election after the next election for even the UK (let alone somewhere in the global south), editors would rightly support deletion. Irrespective of all that, this does not meet WP:GNG. The coverage is trivial and poor quality. AusLondonder (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a failed example. The UK, operating under a parliamentary system, could not logically sustain an election after next election article, even with the fixed term parliaments acts. But I would have no problem with an election after next election article in a strong-presidential system like Mexico or Argentina, provided there were as ample quality sources as there is here. To quote Esquivalience this article "allows readers to gain knowledge of the circumstances and viewpoints behind the 2024 US presidential election." LavaBaron (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron, you have reacted to the last 2 delete !votes with a quote from the previous discussion. That is an interesting style, but by doing so you triggered a notification with 2 previous !keep voters that were not involved yet in this discussion. If you'd do it more often people could perceive it as a canvassing strategy. L.tak (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron - please stop canvassing previous keep !voters. Secondly, what is the difference? Why does a presidential system need an election after the next election article but a parliamentary system not? Also, to suggest there are "ample" sources here is astonishing. AusLondonder (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me of canvassing. If you think I am, take it to ANI. Don't derail this AfD, regardless of how silly it is. LavaBaron (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People can perceive whatever they like, however, I am required to ping other editors when discussing them. The quotes in question are relevant as they informed my own !vote in the AfD prior to this one ... you know, the one that took place 84 days ago. LavaBaron (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then keep it balanced on both sides (you are free to ping all previously involved) or stop it (you were warned last time not to react to every !delete vote). If not I will indeed ask the admins involved previously to reconsider... L.tak (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm not going to "balance" the number of quotes I use from "Keep" and "Delete" !votes as I have made a personal decision that "Keep" provides greater salience and relevance to this discussion which is, in fact, why I !voted "Keep" to begin with. That is the nature of opinion expression on WP. There are quotes from other editors I believe have salience to this discussion and I am using them. As demanded by policy, I am pinging them to know I have invoked their names; they're not just being randomly pinged into this discussion, nor have I made exhortations for said editors to come here and !vote. If you want to throw a fit and derail this discussion with personal attacks, accusations, and specious claims of canvassing, do it at ANI, please. Otherwise, two admins have, in fact, already weighed-in on this discussion so why don't you start your ridiculously ominous ellipse-closing "reconsider ..." request with them? (If this is overly harsh, I apologize, but as you gain greater experience on WP you'll find few editors appreciate being threatened.)
Secondly, if you don't want me to respond to your comments in this AfD, then generalize them instead of starting them with the salutation "LavaBaron ..." - if you don't address me directly by name you'll find I'll be delighted to ignore everything you write, as per your request. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron, the point is that your quotations with links to others may (unintentionally?) lead to making a non-randomly chosen subset of people aware of the discussion, which has the same effect of canvassing. That's something to avoid. The way to do that is up to you. Furthermore, I have no problems that you react to my points (thanks!), but asked you not to react to every !delete "vote" in this discussion in order not to bludgeon the process. L.tak (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:L.tak, I don't think pinging editors who participated in the other AFD can be considered inappropriate canvasing per Wikipedia:Canvassing. One of the items specifically mentioned in the canvassing guidelines under "Appropriate Canvasing" is "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic". Therefore, pinging anyone from the old AFD is fair game under wiki policy. In general I am seeing a lot of editors in this discussion and others who are incorrectly assuming things about wiki policies because they haven't actually fully read them or have forgotten them.4meter4 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully Agree 4meter4. My point was about pinging only editors taking one side, which may happen when quoting just them... As far as I am concerned, pining all is not wrong at all (although it may add to the drama already here ;-))L.tak (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, 4meter - clearly I'm not the only one confused about what L.tak is on about. I think we all agree he'd be better to stop the conspiracy theorizing and focus on policy-based arguments related to the discussion. LavaBaron (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as before, this article shouldn't be created until at least after the 2018 US mid-term elections have been held. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. For those who haven't bothered to read the policy, it states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It's clear that a US presidential election is of sufficient wide interest. It's also clear that their are significant and reliable sources already discussing the prospects of the 2024 election. I'm not buying some arbitrary timeline "of not to be created until 2018" that editors are choosing to make up or User:Wickypedoia poor attempt at trying to dismiss the sources based on arbitrary personal opinion. If good sources are available already ( The New York Times, The Washington Post and The New York Daily News among others) than the article falls within wikipedia's scope. The article is clearly acceptable and in allignement with wikipedia policy on covering future events. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (changed my mind) Obviously satisfies WP:GNG: a number of serious authors nontrivially discuss the topic. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteAfter reviewing the article more carefully, I see the content, while referenced, is dangerously close to WP:TRIVIA and most of its content other than basic stats are speculations and will better be deleted anyway when the actual thing happens. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale and analysis of the sources. The 2024 election per se dosen't pass WP:GNG or WP:EVENT at this point. As the available coverage focuses primarily on the census data, a merge with United States census might be considered (as was done in the 1st Afd discussion).--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ddcm8991, in what way is a future US presidential election not notable; particularly one that has already been the focus of articles in widely read and highly respected publications like The Washington Post and The New York Times? In what way does this topic not pass WP:GNG? Please cite the relevant passages, because as far as I can tell the policies support keeping the article.4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources focus mainly on census data that have relevance to 2024, but there is little in-depth coverage of the the election itself. Not enough to warrant a separate article, per my reading of WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:42. --Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A United States presidential election is notable and their are multiple tertiary sources discussing this future election as the main subject in prominent publications with wide readership across the globe. WP:GNG is satisfied. The references used support the content in the article and in no scenario is this election not going to have an article at some point; regardless of the outcome of this AFD. If Notability is not temporary and sufficient sources currently exist what is the point of this AFD? The article is only going to be recreated at a later date. What's the harm of letting it stay and improving the article over time?4meter4 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Future events can be covered on Wikipedia, we don't need to just go deleting articles for fun. Earthscent (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and WP:TOOSOON.Wickypedoia's analysis of each source makes clear how they lack significant in-depth coverage/dicussion of the subject directly. While all the sources may be adequate for verifying specific information, they are inadequate for the purposes of establishing notability.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as too soon, too speculative, too crystal-ballish, etc. For all we know, by 2024 President for Life Trump may be starting his third term, Texas could secede (again), and Puerto Rico and Guam could be states. Yeah, probably there will be an election then, but we can wait an see rather than having to ride herd on an article for eight years. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TOOSOON. I agree with the nom. and others who've commented that the sources simply don't provide the detailed and in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:GNG, certainly not enough to justify having an article for a election that is 8 years and 2 election cycles away.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Watching this page since the last AfD; registering Keep now for same reasons I registered in the previous one. BlueSalix (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, because WP:WAYTOOSOON is too far away to have been created yet. United States Electoral College is a potential destination for moving the information on demographics. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the U.S. Electoral College article would be a plausible destination in which to merge and redirect the demographic info.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still not yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and whatever policy covers Wikipedia acting as a leading indicator. Most of the statements regarding the election (an thus the utility of the article at present) rests on current speculation of electoral changes as the result of voter demographics changes because of the 2020 census. That will be determined once the census has occurred, and the changes have actually been implemented. Wikipedia isn't a news leader; when there is something that has been said that is of factual value, we can say it after the fact (when we should). Everything being predicated on the census clearly indicates that until the census happens, it's anybody's guess as to results, no matter how well-informed that guess may be, and we don't deal in pure speculation, we deal in after-the-fact collation of information. MSJapan (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no genuinely compelling need for crystal ball articles about elections that are still eight years into the future, which can really say absolutely nothing of substance beyond "this is a thing that will happen, the end" — this kind of thing does not need to exist until the election in question is close enough that there's some meaningful content that can be added to it. Although it's not formal policy as such, I'd fully support a principle that a future election article should not exist until we can at least put an actual name, and not just a "TBA", in the "incumbent leader going into the election" field. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Expect this AFD to be relisted at least twice. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs) as un-salter. LavaBaron (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NOT/WP:CRYSTAL, and note acceptability of renomination: Lest we forget, it was an NC-default-to-keep, not a Keep outright. Three months seems more than enough time to revisit it. Anywho, there's just too much we don't know for this to be anything more than idle speculation. Who's ever elected in 2016 couldn't run in 2024 unless they are defeated in 2020. There's also a Census between now and then, so the electoral map will be different. The people who are perceived as frontrunners now may be dead, disgraced or disinterested by 2024. And will the award-electoral-votes-to-the-nationwide-popular-vote-total winner thing pass in enough state houses to work or won't it? There's just too many question marks for this to be a viable article. pbp 05:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Since nothing whatsoever has changed, I'll repeat what I wrote last time: "My inclination after reading the thread on AN/I was to !vote "delete", but after reading the article, I think there is sufficient valuable information there to justify keeping it, primarily because of the potential adjustment of Electoral Votes following the 2020 census. Had it not been for this factor, I would have followed through and !voted "delete", but given that factor, I believe it should be kept. Under normal circumstances, however, only the immediately following election should have a placeholder article." A trout to Wickypedoia for an unnecessary re-nomination. BMK (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The nominator, whose account was open for a month before making this AfD, has now been blocked indefinitely by Coffee. Oh, and enjoy all the non-contextualized naked toddler pics on their userspace. In light of this, and reasons stated before by myself and others for a procedural close, I'm re-filing a request for the abortion of this AfD which was not made in GF but was made by a disruptive account for the sole purpose of being disruptive. LavaBaron (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - while the original nomination my not have been in GF (I'm accepting that, not having examined the editor or the context of his blocking at all), but there are quite a number of delete opinions expressed in good faith that should not merely be tossed because of a questionable nomination. LadyofShalott 19:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:LadyofShalott - these opinions, though expressed in GF as they may be, are essentially a re-run of the AfD on this article that was closed 84 days before this one was opened. If I pick any article on WP and AfD it enough I'm sure I can get it deleted. AfD is like a grand jury - do it enough and eventually you'll get the result you want. That's why we don't usually countenance hourly, daily, weekly, monthly AfDs on the same article. This is a bad faith AfD by a major vandal - the arguments have all already been argued once before over a period of weeks, and just recently too. If this AfD is not procedurally closed it's a green light to begin abusively "flood" AfD'ing any article we don't like. A discussion occurred already, and - by my count - 88% of the !votes in this AfD are from the same editors who participated in that one.LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT until after the 2020 election. The prior AFD closed with a good majority to either delete or merge and should not have defaulted to keep. As before, there are no substantive sources about the future election itself that would even pass gng, merely content about demographics in that year. Popular culture references are inappropriate for the subject matter and do not provide notability - House of Cards is rightly not in the 2016 article. The remainder is generic information about American elections, nothing providing importance to the subject. Even after this year's election, anything about candidates is purely speculative and without substance until after 2020. I also urge LavaBaron not to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion as in prior AFDs. Debates closed as no consensus are welcome to be reconsidered, and I kindly request someone other than Coffee to close this one. Reywas92Talk 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect There are sources giving non-trivial coverage to the 2024 United States Presidential Election, but it’s not particularly substantive and it will likely be years before we get better coverage. During the last AfD, I voted to merge the demographic information into the article on the 2020 United States Census. I believe that this and redirecting the article title to United States presidential election would be the best option; once the demographic information is removed all that remains is the in popular culture section and some sparse speculation on 2024 candidates. However, I think keeping this article would be in-line with policy even if I do not consider doing so to be the best outcome. Also, if this is closed as no consensus, I think it would be best to wait until at least the conclusion of the 2016 election before renominating. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. True, possibly we may degenerate into a dictatorship by then and not bother with elections, or evolve into a libertarian paradise, and no longer need them. Short of these possibilities, it's going to happen, and people are going to discuss it, as early as they possibly can, because that's what political people and commentators fdo. There's already some, and in about 6 months there will be a great deal more. because people always try to proeject what will be coming. How short -sighted and over-literal can we possibly get, that we hold offon making a n article like this until just before the election. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but there is and will be real coverage of this event in reliable sources before 2024. That means it meets the notability guideline, and as such should be kept IMO. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When those sources exist is when the article should exist; you are describing WP:CRYSTAL. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, the 20 existing sources are... what, exactly? You'll note the "is and will be" part of my original comment. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are three sections: Gossip, talk of the the potential impact of the next census, and "in popular culture". Some analysis of trends in population (a separate subject we already cover), are giving political writers a bit of material to talk about the 2024 election (based on electoral college gains/losses via population changes). Other than that, there's throwaway speculation about who might run, off-hand comments from various political figures and celebrities, and other silliness. The only valuable substance here is the analysis of the electoral college, but why could this not be covered in one of the articles about the electoral college, congressional appointments, or the census? Changes brought by the census, by the way, are not unique to 2024. There are speculative sources about 2032 too (and probably 2044...any beyond?), and the 2032 election is one of the examples given of an inappropriate article at WP:CRYSTALBALL. That it will be notable is completely beside the point. The reason we don't create articles about subjects before there's been sufficient coverage is because having this article does a disservice to the readers, feeding into the empty speculation and gossip that's routine for a news blog or 24h news channel. To clarify, I wouldn't be opposed to a Merge (to e.g. 2020 United States Census) but a redirect wouldn't make sense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, per my previous reasoning--which I am cutting and pasting here--as well as per the nomination statement: "This isn't even a particularly close call. There is tons of precedent that these types of "articles" are basically proscribed. Additionally, every single "per WP:CRYSTALBALL keep should be discarded as frivolous, since that page explicitly states that such articles as this one shouldn't exist. This is little more than a coatrack for various theories and viewpoints. As someone mentioned above there might be a small amount of content that could be assimilated into the 2020 Census article, but that's it." Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2020 United States Census, as the sourced material is more about the census than the election. My opinion has not changed from the previous discussions, and is based on WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NORUSH, and WP:COMMONSENSE. An article on the next election is fine, I might even be convinced about an article on the next next election (2020) as we get to within a year of the previous one, but the next next next election is just silly. We can split this back off to its own article in 2020. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to 2020 United States Census, per nomination statement and the arguments of Reywas92, Rhododentrites, Hallward's Ghost,and Anhecht.--Cojovo (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - as I stated in my last vote, the 2024 election is already upon us in a very real way. Not only is the date set by the US Constitution, but there are plenty of WP:RS that discuss how organizers and even candidates are materially developing in reaction to current events. It's not like we are talking about 2060 here, where there is no feasible way of sourcing the item, even though it will be notable as well. The reality is, as I said before, that US politics makes the next two to three presidential elections relevant and filled with detail well in advance. As an aside, the reality of writing an important article is that many of the good RS today may not be locatable in 4-5 years; to write the best encyclopedia possible, we need to start in on something when it pops up as notable. We had a good discussion before, and nothing new is in the rationale for the AFD. So I don't see the reason we're all wasting our time on this again... Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 00:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have struck the nominator's !vote since he/she has been indefinitely blocked as a persistent and acute vandal. This is done for ease of closing admin bookkeeping, and also as an informational courtesy for new !voters to this AfD who may appreciate knowing the AfD is a bad faith proposal proffered by a persistent and acute vandal who was indefinitely blocked from WP almost immediately after opening this AfD due to a pattern of extreme disruption, bordering on outright destruction of major, high-traffic sections of Wikipedia. LavaBaron (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be honest, you struck it because you do not like the fact that it is a good analysis of the sources, which many participants here have referred to and endorsed, regardless of who initially wrote it. I have unstruck the text accordingly. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. If you consider this a "bad faith AFD", what about the user's other proposals at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada and the 2016 United States presidential election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Bernie Sanders Facebook groups suspension, the last two of which were endorsed by overwhelming majorities? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I really wanted to obfuscate access to it I would have deleted it totally. The fact I merely struck it, which is customary in cases of mass vandalism and allows anyone to continue to read it with relative ease, debunks your conspiracy theory. Your undoing of the striking of the indeffed account's comments is done in violation of WP:SIGCLEAN but I'll ask another editor to undo your vandalism (as this topic is subject to active arbitration, it is under a 1RR restriction, precluding me from undoing the vandalism on my own).
Also, I find it a bit interesting you have been so vociferous - here and elsewhere - in your support for this major, page-destroying vandal who was indefinitely blocked for switching the entire Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump articles, and posting child porn on their userpage. LavaBaron (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to WP:SIGCLEAN. In this case, because the text is the nomination itself and the main evidence in support of deletion, to which many others have subsequently referred, I think it should not be struck because it is not "relatively easy to read" when struck through. So despite the general rule, I believe there is more benefit in keeping it as is in this case despite the nominator's subsequent block. So I stand by my removal of the strikethrough. If a disinterested party tells me to do so was still wrong regardless of my reasons, then I certainly won't do it again, but I would certainly not call it vandalism.
I do not consider myself as "supporting" the nominator at all. I just happen to support this particular nomination for deletion, and am certainly not the only one to do so. After seeing your accusations that it is a "bad faith nomination", I had a look at their other nominations and have come to the conclusion they were not bad faith either. I haven't looked at the whole of their edits though, so given the fact that they were blocked indefinitely means there must have been some serious disruption. But I do not believe that makes every edit they performed vandalism which must be struck out. Why not have a little faith that, regardless of who started the discussion, the large number of subsequent participants means a fair outcome will be reached in the end?
A final point - if there was child porn on the nominator's user page, I've gotta ask why you thought it was a good idea to share it with every participant here. I note you've changed the text of the piped link to describe what was there, but your original link was something vague like "look at the nominator's userpage". When I clicked on it the page had been deleted so I didn't see anything offending. But boy I would be pissed off with you just as much as I would be with the nominator if I suddenly had such images appearing on my screen. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Apart from my two comments on this page, where have I "supported" the nominator? I can't remember doing it at all, let alone vociferously. Form my recollection, I posted the aside about "mission accomplished" and unstruck the text. Please point me in the direction of other occasions I have supported them. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have time to read your entire speech but, vis a vis the first sentence, your opinions of what WP's policies should be doesn't trump WP's policies as they actually are. From "flood" AfD'ing this article to multiple !voting to an indeff'ed vandal opening this nom to engaging in revert vandalism, the "Delete" side has - once again - succeeded in setting a certain "scorched earth" approach in their attempts to purge this most-hated of articles. But, whatever. You can choose to undo your vandalism or someone else can do it for you. Doesn't really matter to me. LavaBaron (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's my interpretation of the guideline as it stands, not my opinion on what it should be. Despite your now repeated claim, I do not think my action was vandalism. If I read WP:Vandalism correctly, you are accusing me of a "deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". I'd ask you to re-consider the allegation in light of my explanation.
Since my last post was a bit too long, let me take you to the important points. (1) You providing obscured links to child porn - care to share your rationale for doing so? (2) The postscript about me providing vociferous support "elsewhere" is also something I'd genuinely like an answer to, because I honestly have no recollection of doing so. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, your decision to trump WP's policies because you just don't like them is absolutely not permitted. And if you don't retract this sick accusation that I have been "providing obscured links to child porn" within the next 15 minutes real-time, I will immediately take this to ANI. I have never been subject to such vile comments in my time on WP (this even eclipses the time User:Baromp accused me of posting links to anti-Semitism [6], for which he was promptly indeffed by User:Floquenbeam). It's clear you are here for one reason: disruption. Just like the now indeff'd editor who opened this AfD. Quite a coincidence, but I'll let someone else judge how big of one. LavaBaron (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it is a guideline open to interpretation, not an iron-clad rule handed down from above. Ever heard of WP:IAR? Despite that, I will say once again that if a disinterested party tells me that I was wrong to do so, I would re-strike the text. But I think it is not so simple now that someone else has endorsed the post.
On the other point, yesterday you provided a link to the nominator's userpage with this edit. Your link was piped as "enjoy their userspace", i.e. giving no indication to any person who clicked the link what lay beyond. The offending page was deleted 8 minutes later and at some stage the piped text was changed to the current "enjoy all the non-contextualized naked toddler pics on their userspace". If your original post used such language, then there would have been sufficient warning and nobody in their right mind would click the link.
But assuming the material was there at the time you posted the link, you must admit that you provided an obscure link to offensive and probably illegal material. At some stage you corrected the error, which was hopefully because you realized the mistake you made. I just wanted to ask what your rationale was for providing the original link? Reading the post for a second time, I can guess you wanted to demonstrate that the user was blocked and a really bad person. That's fair enough, and hopefully nobody followed your link before the page was deleted.
As for your final aspersions, I feel no need to respond because any disinterested person that looks at my contributions for the last two years would soon see your allegation has absolutely no basis. You mentioned the 1RR thing earlier, so this topic must have a nasty history. But I have taken no part in it before, and am unlikely to ever do so again.
This post may be a bit long again, but I would appreciate the courtesy of you reading it this time. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've realized I have made my own mistake in drawing a link between LavaBaron and porn, so I apologise wholeheartedly. Nothing good can come from continuing this thread. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must think 2028 Summer Olympics is really "too far in the future" then. LavaBaron (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually stuff to say about it... AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2016 (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. There were 29 participants in this discussion and the opinions broadly fall into five categories, with overlaps between all of them (except between outright "keep" and outright "delete" for obvious reasons):

  • Keep both articles because they are independently notable. 12 editors expressed clear preference for this, plus 3 others who are fine with either keeping or merging.
  • Remove this article by deletion or redirection because the controversy lacks independent notability from the artwork, or because of POV fork / BLP concerns (see below). 11 editors expressed clear preference for this (7 delete, 4 redirect), plus 2 others who are fine with either keeping or merging this article into Mattress Performance, and 1 other who is fine with merging either way.
  • But this is juxtaposed against 3 others that argued to merge Mattress Performance into this article because the artwork lacks independent notability from the controversy, including 1 "keep/merge this way" and 1 "merge either way" as described above.
  • POV fork concerns: 5 editors (including 1 "per above") argued that this article should be deleted because it is an unacceptable POV fork, but this is juxtaposed against 3 others who argued that it is necessary to preserve both articles so that we can provide appropriate NPOVs for both the controversy and the artwork.
  • Delete due to BLP concerns - raised by 4 editors including 1 "per above". "No consensus, default to delete due to BLP concerns" is sometimes an acceptable AfD outcome, but only in cases where the predominant concern for deletion is BLP, which isn't the case here.

I find that the dispute between the artwork lacks independent notability from the controversy and the controversy lacks independent notability from the artwork actually weakens both arguments and supports the notion that the two topics are independently notable. The slight but significant majority (16 of 29) favouring outcomes which require us to have an article about the controversy also means that, in the absence of an overriding policy concern, as closing admin I should enact a "keep" outcome.

So, weighing up all the arguments against each other, I'm closing this as keep. I also doubt that a further RfC [or AfD on the Mattress Performance article, for that matter] would be fruitful at this stage, because this discussion was advertised on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) and actually carried on for exactly a month. It is unlikely that consensus can be reached to remove either article from this Wikipedia. Deryck C. 23:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University rape controversy[edit]

Columbia University rape controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entry mostly duplicates content that is either already included on the entry for Mattress Performance, or that was rejected by community consensus as being unwarranted. This article covers, in detail, an unproven sexual assault allegation dealing with a non-notable person who has made a concerted effort to keep a relatively low profile, and raises serious BLP issues. There was previously pretty strong opposition to a similar proposal for a page move proposal on the Mattress Performance page, and this sort of seems like an even more problematic version of exactly the same idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Nblund (talk • contribs)

  • Comment, this article is regarding the case presented plainly and fairly, with accusation, defense, outcome, reception. The goal is to present the events leading to the Mattress Performance neutrally. Nungesser has been vocal in defending himself publicly, releasing both lawsuits and having multiple interviews with news media outlets such as The Daily Beast. As per NPOV we must present both sides with neutrality, at the end of the day he was found "not responsible", his views must presented otherwise the BLP violations will always exist. I do not feel Mattress Performance is the best location for the details of the case. There is more than enough information to warrant a WP:SPLIT. Valoem talk contrib 21:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is about a notable controversy with a world wide coverage, Mattress Performance on the other hand is about the art piece which is a crucial part of the controversy but not the only part. Information that was rejected in the Mattress Performance article was rejected because the article focus was the art piece and the surrounding controversy was a tangential part. I would agree, now that this article exists, the Mattress Performance article should be focused more on the art piece and the "controversy" coverage should be minimal in there. Also at the time of the move proposal mentioned above, the controversy was still developing and the article was about the artist herself, not the art piece. It was later renamed per Blp1e and we still don't have an article about the artist for same reason. Darwinian Ape talk 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Details regarding "the events leading to the Mattress Performance" seem well-suited to go in to the Mattress Performance entry. To be clear: i'm not raising a neutrality issue. The concern is that this topic isn't independently notable and doesn't warrant an independent article. The denial, outcome, and reception are all mentioned in the Mattress Performance entry, and "new" information in this entry seems mostly composed of block quotes, unwarranted biography, or play-by-play recounting of a non-notable sexual assault accusation.
DariwnianApe: The entry is primarily about the Mattress Performance because the consensus was the Mattress Performance made this case notable. There's no indication that this view changed, and it's patently obvious that no consensus in favor of a split developed in the 6 hours between the opening of the split discussion and the creation of this page. Nblund (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How are you defining non-notable? This case has been covered by multiple reliable sources and appears to pass WP:GNG. Valoem talk contrib 00:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the creation of this article was a bit hasty, I would have preferred to wait for additional voices. But I believe having a separate article is a better solution for documenting the controversy. Neutrality will suffer as long as the focus of the sole article about the controversy remains an art piece, which by the way not at all the focus of the most reliable sources. I don't believe we should delete the article about the art piece. It has independent notability,(i.e praise/criticism it got from the art world) but so does the controversy. Darwinian Ape talk 01:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that acknowledgement. It really sounds like you're making a case for changing the main focus of the Mattress Performance entry. I think that's perfectly reasonable and should be considered, but it's not an acceptable reason to create a separate entry. We didn't agree on changing the focus of an existing entry, so a new entry was created and it's been filled with stuff that was previously rejected. This is more or less the definition of a POV fork. It lowers the quality of the encyclopedia and it undermines the consensus building process. Why not merge in some of this content to the existing entry, and then discuss whether or not a split is necessary? Nblund (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the focus of the Mattress performance article should not change because the art piece has a notability of it's own regardless of the controversy. I too was afraid of a POV fork before when the mattress article was the only article, but the successful implementation of the sister article Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol convinced me that we can focus on the subject of the art on the mattress performance article(as the aforementioned article is) and document the controversy in it's own article. As I said, I would have preferred more eyes before creation, but I will not endorse deletion of this article on procedural grounds now that it's created, because I believe this is the best solution there is. Perhaps I can convince you that withdrawing this nomination and starting an RFC to keep, merge or remove this article would better suit our needs instead? So that we can have more eyes which we did not have the chance the first time. Darwinian Ape talk 00:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see any reason to duplicate already existing content, nor include all this new material that's at best skirting the line with WP:BLP. I'm going to delete some of the more obvious stuff that's unsourced, for now. Hopefully this will be uncontroversial. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is duplicated? There is a great deal not mentioned in the other article. Valoem talk contrib 01:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The case is notable, it's not independently notable and the new article seems like it reflect that fact. Without the art project, this is a run-of-the-mill sexual assault allegation, and we don't have entries for any of the dozens of other men who have filed similar lawsuits alleging unfair treatment. Readers probably would get by without the detailed knowledge of Nungesser's upbringing, or verbatim transcripts of Sulkowicz's Facebook exchanges. The truly new stuff here seems simple to incorporate in to the existing entry, and I don't see any reason this wasn't at least attempted first. Nblund (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Run-of-the-mill sexual assault resulting in extend international media coverage? Valoem talk contrib 01:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Caseeart, just to be clear: no one disputes that the topic as a whole is notable, but this topic is already covered in the entry for Mattress Performance. The question is whether a separate entry is justified. Nblund (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The information here contains the documented outcome of the allegations based on trial and investigation. It is not covered in the other article nor should it be covered there. Valoem talk contrib 23:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Mattress Performance entry does cover the lawsuit and the investigation, but the lack of mention of the outcome of the suit seems to be an oversight. I'm very confident no one would object to that being added to the existing entry, and that seems like a great solution to this issue that would allow us to avoid this content fork. We could even start a page move discussion that would allow more balanced coverage of the suit alongside the performance. What do you think? Nblund (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Title of article needs to be about "Columbia University". Majority of all sources have a title similar to "Columbia University rape". Very few are titled "Mattress Performance". Even if we were to merge - we should merge Mattress Performance into this article. CaseeArt Talk 08:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (the article it was forked from), though possibly under a title more like the one above ("Columbia University rape controversy"), since a majority of the content even of the Mattress article is about the rape and various university and legal proceedings rather than the art piece. (Or delete/redirect, since there is not much to merge.) -sche (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC) -sche (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) to this article, not the other way around. There is enough coverage in reliable sources of both and the fact that there are very different aspects to the story, both the artwork and the tie-in to the campus rape controversy. The fact that there are reliable sources that focus commentary on the art-worthiness of the project and reliable sources that focus on the rape allegations with no commentary on the mattress as an artistic project in and of itself strongly suggests that these are two distinct subjects. The articles for The Massacre at Chios by Delacroix and the Chios Massacre are able to co-exist. If, however, the consensus is to merge, it should be merged to an article title that is related to the underlying controversy. It is correct to say that most rape allegations don't become notable topics, but it's also correct that criminal allegations that are related to a notable controversy are more likely to be notable than a college student carrying around a mattress; the rape allegations may or may not have been notable when connected with the underlying controversy without the mattress carrying, but the mattress carrying would almost certainly not have been notable without the allegations. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reverse is true—the performance art would probably have been notable without the allegations, but the allegations would almost certainly not have been notable without the performance art. Anyway, these kinds of hypotheticals are impossible to prove and probably not very good arguments. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree. Without the underlying, larger controversy (both the wide campus controversy and the specific incident), it's just a student carrying around a mattress. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do we really like a merge is option? -sche CoffeeCrumbs, would there not be NPOV violations? The article would be written with the first have stating the outcome of the case then the performance. The Mattress article focuses on the performance with minor details of the case, this article focuses on case with minor details on the performance. My question is can we portray the performance fairly if too much detail is given to the case? Valoem talk contrib 16:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also this source here gives Sulkowicz's defense, I did not have time to include it fully as the article was fired out in 6 hours, but if we include a strong defense for her this article would be even longer making a merge less viable. Valoem talk contrib 16:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer Keep to Merge, but if we do in fact agree on Merge, I rather it be connected more with an article title reflecting the larger controversy rather than specifically the performance piece. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would also violate NPOV by not giving due weight to the outcome of a highly cited legal case on which the performance was based. Valoem talk contrib 16:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think length is an issue. Portions of this entry appear to be composed almost entirely of extended verbatim quotes from editorials. I cut and and pasted the substantive portion of entry in to the the Mattress Performance entry in this sandbox. It comes out to just over 43,000 bytes, which is only a couple thousand more than the existing entry for Mattress Performance. That's within the recommended limits, even without removing the redundant and wordy prose. It would be very easy to create a spinout article down the road if it proved necessary and if community consensus supported it. Nblund (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please also add reaction to the allegations and lets see where we are at. That article is still missing massive information. Valoem talk contrib 20:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the "reception" section gets to 47,000 bytes, again, this is without any editing for content or length at all. This is still within the recommended guidelines. There's no need for haste in splitting entries, and we certainly don't need to preemptively split articles. It really doesn't seem like you've made a plausible argument that length is the motivating issue here. Nblund (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes sense to have separate articles for the art project and the accusation/legal actions. Some of the latter could be removed from the Mattress Performance article, making it more about the art and the artist. Where necessary, "main article:" notations could lead to the article about the controversy/legal issues. Also, the Mattress Performance has ended, but the legal actions have not yet, so that points to a logical decision that these are interrelated yet separate events. LaMona (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - separate articles makes more sense. BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a POV fork created by Valoem after he argued on Talk:Mattress Performance that the article should be split in three. It also names the accused, which we had wide consensus to omit. If Valoem wants to argue for two or three articles, or to move the existing article to a different title, or to include the accused's name, he needs to gain consensus on Talk:Mattress Performance, preferably in a 30-day RfC, not via a seven-day AfD. The new article also violates Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia because some of the writing of Mattress was copied over without attribution. SarahSV (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SarahSV please link the discussion to omit the name of the accused. Also what is the POV I am pushing? Valoem talk contrib 03:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. Bromley86 (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. There were several such discussions, including on one of the noticeboards, I believe the RSN. SarahSV (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait there was no discussion here, it was BoboMeowCat stating his views. I was actually looking for this discussion which allows his name plus full defense. It is a BLP violation to not include the messages as they have been cited by reliable sources, with authenticity and time stamps confirmed by both parties. Valoem talk contrib 15:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable event with substantial coverage in reliable sources. It makes sense to have an article on the controversy itself as opposed to the "performance art". Kelly hi! 08:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SlimVirgin. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork as well as per PeterTheFourth's comments. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect perhaps as I'm not seeing how this can be better enhanced as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Although I prefer Valoem's presentation of the subject, this is a POV fork, and he ought to seek consensus for including additional material in the existing article. It's also problematic that some text was copied without attribution. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Comment (guess I should vote) but I agree that an RFC should be posted to discuss changing the focus of the Mattress Performance entry to include more material from the suit. The accusation motivated the performance, and the lawsuit is primarily about Columbia's sanctioning the performance. The bulk of the coverage discusses all three issues together. The split isn't definitely isn't justified by size, it isn't justified by content, and it was created in apparent disregard for consensus building. Nblund (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nblund: FYI this is a duplicate !vote. The nominator is free to comment as much as anyone else, but the nomination itself counts as your bold !vote. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Isaidnoway, on that point: I notice that all five of these sources mention the Mattress Protest. I looked at the archives of several news outlets and couldn't find a single story that mentioned Nungesser without discussing the Mattress Performance.

To the extent that the suit is covered by the mainstream press, it's frequently even referenced as the "Carry that Weight" suit. It's difficult to find reliable sources that discuss Nungesser or the suit separately from the performance, so it's really difficult to fathom why the two should be covered separately. Nblund (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess by this argument we could merge Mattress Performance into Columbia University rape controversy as I can't find one source that mentions the performance without the rape allegations. Valoem talk contrib 05:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nblund - I would fully expect those sources to mention the mattress protest - it provides context and background, just as I would expect those sources about the mattress protest to mention why she carried that mattress on her back - it provides context and background. I don't see any compelling reason why these particular sources should be excluded or dismissed in this AfD discussion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Valoem: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, are you saying you support a merge? I can see a case for merging at least some portions of the Columbia University Rape Controversy entry in to the Mattress Performance entry, although I think the appropriate way to do that is through an RFC.
Isaidnoway: I'm not saying they should be ignored. My point was that the Mattress Performance, the lawsuit, and the sexual assault allegations are usually covered together in reliable sources, and so they should probably be covered together here. Nblund (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but disagree with the argument that just because they are "usually covered together in reliable sources" means that "they should probably be covered together here". The first analogy that comes to mind is the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon, they are always covered together in reliable sources, but we have separate articles on them, Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, they are always covered together in reliable sources, but separate bio articles for them as well. The issue here is whether or not the scope of this article is notable enough for it's own entry, I believe it is. Out of the 11 categories the Mattress Performance article is listed under, over half (6) are Art categories - Contemporary art, Feminist art, Performance art in New York City, Political art, Public art in New York City, Works about rape - that indicates to me that the primary scope and focus of that article is about the performance art aspect and her freedom of expression. Nungesser is consistently mentioned in reliable sources about campus sexual assault stories and “Reverse Title-IX” Lawsuit stories and Los Angeles Times and FOX News and U.S. News & World Report and Teen Vogue.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article is a necessity for maintaining NPOV on Wikipedia. There is a unanimous agreement that this article passes GNG. The question is POV fork lets looks at this argument:
  • Wikipedia:POVFORK says:

    Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it.

I do not see disruptive editing. There has been no mention as to what POV is allegedly being pushed. The facts are the defendant was found "not responsible" on two fronts, both Columbia inquiry and legal inquiry. It is a blatant violation to not include Nungesser's defense. Before I included criticism the article Mattress Performance was written like this with barely any criticism and portraying her as an undisputed victim and heroine. A quick search clearly shows this is wrong. There have been tremendous disagreement with many sources believing he is the victim. The second issue is that Facebook messages have been confirmed by both parties therefore it's inclusion should be uncontroversial as long as we disclose both party's full defense. This source The Other Side of the College Sexual Assault Crisis; Allegations of Sexual Assault on Campus Are at Record Levels, as Are Lawsuits from the Accused, Including Paul Nungesser, Claiming Schools Discriminated against Them Based on Gender provided by Isaidnoway (talk · contribs) shows a widespread impact of the lawsuit, clearly warranting a split. Valoem talk contrib 19:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Valoem: WP:POVFORK also says

    In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

Your version better complies with NPOV than the original, but is still a POV fork. It's also a problem that you unilaterally chose to name the accused student. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the POV then? There cannot be a POV fork without a POV. Also I did not "unilaterally chose to name the accused student" there was a discussion here closed in favor of naming the accused based on attribution. Valoem talk contrib 02:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 04:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above, this clearly meets WP:GNG because of its extensive coverage in the news, so the only question is whether it is a POV fork. I don't think it is, because the article that some have proposed merging this with, Mattress Performance, is clearly focused on the performance art aspect more than the incident and legal issues, which are the focus of this article. It seems likely to me that someone searching Wikipedia might want information on just the legal issues, not the performance art, or vice versa. Therefore, two separate articles seems reasonable to me. OtterAM (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it ironic that this article is being labeled as a WP:POVFORK (pushing a particular point of view) when the other article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), clearly has a POV Title about her senior thesis project, which is about what she considers to be the poor handling of her rape allegations by university authorities. That's her POV and the article is titled with that point of view. And it has also accurately been pointed out in WP:POVFORK that - The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. Here, the "certain subject" is her senior thesis project, the alleged rape and the way that the University handled that allegation; the facts and major points of view surrounding her senior thesis project are adequately represented in that article. But, let's not forget that Nungesser was also accused by two other females and a male of sexual misconduct, and those "facts and major points of view" surrounding those allegations are not reflected in that article. Indeed, Nungesser's rebuttal to those allegations are not even mentioned. In addition, the facts and major points of view surrounding his Title IX lawsuit (Columbia discriminated against him “as a male.”), are not reflected in the Mattress Performance article either. And finally, I don't understand what the issue is with naming the "accused student", when he has publicly spoke out - The New York Times, Newsweek, The Daily Beast.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually tough to find detailed coverage of the Title IX suit. Several papers mention it, but I had a hard time finding, for instance, any detailed coverage of how the recently re-filed complaint differs from the complaint that was dismissed earlier this year. Nungesser is one of dozens of men who have made this argument, and it doesn't seem like it was taken especially seriously outside of some questionable sources like the Washington Examiner. Nblund (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly, what seems to have happened here is that certain editors exploited the pretense that the article was solely about the "art" in order to exclude certain information, and Valoem called their bluff. However, the fact remains that there are not actually two separate topics here. We now have two articles on the same topic which differ only in POV, and that's what is meant by "POV fork". The other issues, about his name and so on, need to be discussed elsewhere than at AfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This will not be the case if we focus solely on the art in Mattress Performance as we do in Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. I think mattress Performance, as an art piece, should have it's own article, especially since a less notable second piece has it's own. Darwinian Ape talk 21:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's worth noting that this new entry is mostly copy-pasted from an old version of the Mattress Performance entry (warts and all), so it's literally composed of a large amount of material that was previously rejected from the other entry. That makes it kind of tough to see this as anything other than a POV fork.
It's also worth noting that the version this was copy-pasted from is the same version that prompted the RfC regarding removing the accused student's name in the first place, so notion that the entry satisfies the criteria laid out by the closer in that case is kind of absurd. Nblund (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, was the content rejected due to NPOV, or scope? I think it's the latter and that makes the new entry a necessary content fork, not a POV Fork. Darwinian Ape talk 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually. The content was initially removed over those BLP concerns. The "scope" issue was a content issue, but people cited a myriad of other content issues with things like quoting the Facebook messages, citing editorials from the NYPOST for claims of fact, and citing primary sources. Nblund (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree, though, that there was a scope issue which prevented otherwise reliable and neutral information to be kept from the article? I believe the new article, though issues it may have, shows that the scope of the Mattress performance article was too narrow to document the whole controversy.Darwinian Ape talk 00:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Most of the reliably sourced material is already cited in the Mattress Performance entry, and I don't think anyone would object to adding some additional detail to the sections on the allegation or the lawsuit. I do think people would object to stuff like citing Breitbart.com to make a claim of fact about a person, but I think that would be objectionable pretty much anywhere on Wikipedia. Nblund (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think a determination about the scope of the Mattress Performance article is a good idea. I don't know what the reason is behind referring to Nungesser as "the student" or "the accused student" in that article and refusing to document his side of the story, but if that's the case due to a local consensus, then a fork was warranted here. As early as December 2014, Nungesser self-identified as "the accused student" in the New York Times and offered his point of view about the allegations against him, and again in December 2015 he self-identified as "the student" in Newsweek, with extensive details about the allegations against him, and self-identified in the Daily Beast article, and self-identified in his publicly filed lawsuit as well. If there are allegations of a serious crime being levied against an individual, and that individual has self-identified and his point of view in relation to the allegations is being suppressed here, then that is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Naming him "the student" or "the accused student" dehumanizes him and may appear as if he is embarrassed or hiding due to guilt. Since his name is easy to find it is best to mention him per NPOV. Valoem talk contrib 02:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, there is an implication that it "dehumanizes him", while her side of the story is told from a narrative that is personalized by using her name.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now: no one "refused to document" anything. Valoem was encouraged to make a more specific proposal or a bold edit to the existing entry, but he closed the split discussion six hours after opening it. No one could have "refused" anything in that time period even if they wanted to.
I understand that people are unhappy with the state of that entry, but, again, creating a content fork is absolutely not the way to fix it. Nblund (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not in relation to Valoem or what he was encouraged to do. What I meant by "refused to document", is that as early as December 2014, Nungesser self-identified as "the accused student" in the New York Times, and again in February 2015 he spoke to the DB. In all that time, a major viewpoint on the unfounded allegations is conspicuously missing from that article. Editor's should not have to be "encouraged" to abide by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion that resulted in his name being removed came after both of those articles were published, several editors noted that he had been interviewed, so that was clearly a consideration. I don't think his view is missing from that entry, and I don't think it's productive to cast vague aspersions on other editors. If the Mattress Performance entry is biased and violates NPOV, then that issue hasn't been fixed, and we should do something about it. All entries are supposed to be written neutrally and in accordance with the BLP guidelines, and it seems like the appropriate thing to do, if you think the article has BLP issues, is to merge these two articles and create something more neutral. Nblund (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is the reason two articles are needed on this subject? Why can't this all be covered under one title? Bus stop (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the entire discussion above. Valoem talk contrib 22:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't the material in this article be incorporated into the other article? The work of art and the possible wrongdoing are one and the same, are they not? A certain amount of language can be devoted to addressing the work of art. But it has to be balanced against the amount of language devoted to addressing the possible wrongdoing. I see no reason these two focusses need separate articles. Why can't they both be addressed in the same article? Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One main issue is a double reception section one for the "performance art" and the other for reaction to accusation itself. This could get messy and it is hard to write both neutrally. If we look at this topic in its entirety initial response was overwhelmingly positive. There were three women accusing Nungesser of sexual misconduct and he chose remained silent until April 23, 2015. Many were confused as to how he was found innocent. However after he released his side many sources suggested that he may be the victim and the perhaps the injustice was against Nungesser not Sulkowicz. The case is still ongoing, the performance is over. The ramification of this could extend far beyond its initial implications. A great deal is still not included in this article including Facebook message, the defense of both parties and the second lawsuit from Nungesser. There are two separate issues here and we are a long way from NPOV. A merge (I am assuming you prefer that over delete) may be far more complex and difficult to write. Valoem talk contrib 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merging is what I have in mind and I think a new title is called for. I would suggest a title such as "Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University". I agree that it is a difficult article to write but I think the reader should have all relevant information in one article. Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A change in the title seems sensible to me, and I'm open to a merge if that option can gain consensus. One point worth noting: the

"readable prose size" of the Columbia University Sexual Assault page is actually only 19KB, and 18KB for the Mattress Performance entry. So we could easily merge the two and come in well under the size limitations.

I think it's pretty unlikely that a whole lot of new material is going to be introduced here. We can revisit the idea of a spin out article if we need to in the future. As it stands, however, it seems like we're struggling to find decent sourcing for basic facts about this case: information about where the two students met is sourced to Breitbart.com, information about the accused student's mother appears to come from a primary-source German-language website, and vast swaths of the Columbia University entry are composed of block quotes and verbatim copy-paste from an old version of the Mattress Performance entry. The truly "new" material there is probably just a couple of paragraphs long at the most. Nblund (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title—"Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)"—is problematic. This is not a standard article on a work of art. "Sulkowicz — a visual arts major — has turned her senior thesis into a performance art piece that blends campus activism and personal expression."[7] "She has said she will carry the mattress around campus until the male student who she alleges raped her leaves Columbia, either by university action or his own volition."[8] A title for our article should acknowledge the disputed nature of the subject of the article as well as the setting, which is the little self-contained world of art education. The present title implies validity which is inherently non-neutral given for instance the lawsuits brought by the target of the artwork. Furthermore I don't think the title of our article should be lending inordinate weight to what is merely an unestablished artist's student work. Bus stop (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. --DHeyward (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The events described here are well-reported and notable because of the success of the performance art. I don't regard it as a POV issue at all. On the one hand, the performance art made headlines. On the other, the events triggering the art also made headlines. The latter isn't appropriate in the performance art article, so a second article is reasonable. Phiwum (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say "The latter isn't appropriate in the performance art article..." Please explain. Why should we divide material between two articles? Isn't all the material related? It is an event which unfolded on a college campus involving art. Why wouldn't we tackle the whole subject in one article? Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mattress Performance. I would very much like to be able to vote delete as per WP:BPL, because this "rape controversy" is in fact an allegation of non-consensual, non-violent intercourse made by an undergraduate against a fellow undergraduate she had dated and with whom, with whom she had an ongoing, friendly relationship (proven by texts) both before and after the alleged incident, and by her own account, with whom she had previously been intimate. The problem is that some things cannot be walked back. The University President has apologized for the ruin of the man's reputation. But it is now far too late to restore his privacy. We can, however, tone things down by condensing both this text and the text of the target article, editing carefully for NPOV, and consolidating the 2 overly long articles into 1.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am curious to know DGG (talk · contribs) opinion here, there are arguments for POV fork yet no one has mentioned what the POV is. Is it better to merge the articles? Is this better than splitting? Valoem talk contrib 06:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: your stated justification for creating the page was a belief that the existing entry didn't include sufficient detail about the accused student's POV, when other editors explained why, you effectively restored an old version of the Mattress Performance entry with minor changes, and used that new entry to include the materials you wanted. I think the primary "POV" here is just your own personal viewpoint about what should be in the entry. Nblund (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is called for is merging the two articles into an article with a neutral title. This is not an article on a standard work of art. The title of our article should not be the title of the work of art. Bus stop (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to the mattress article (however titled), as a content fork. This is all part of one and the same notable set of events and people, and splitting off subarticles is not warranted by the importance of the whole issue, at least as long it doesn't continue to generate new coverage.  Sandstein  17:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: yes it is receiving continual coverage, [9], [10], [11] and many more, the case is receiving ongoing coverage for over a year. Valoem talk contrib 20:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but even these stories are framed as related to the mattress performance, with photos of the student carrying it and everything. I don't know whether the proper title of the article should be about the mattress performance, or the rape allegations and related proceedings, or the artist herself who is a BLP1E it seems, but I don't see an easy way to disentangle the whole issue into several distinct topics worthy of an article.  Sandstein  17:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisiting this endless discussion, which seems to be trending towards Redirecting and Merging. This makes a great deal of sense because the performance art piece only got traction because of the rape allegation, and the rape allegation had a large media footprint because of the performance art. We cannot delete both articles because the coverage was extensive. But we need to remember not only that both parties were undergraduates (i.e., there was no power differential;) that there was no supporting evidence for the allegation of rape; that the art project, the drumbeat of publicity, the young man's consent to the releasing of exculpatory evidence (private text messages between the couple that he released only after it became clear that his privacy was irrevocably breached and reputation ruined,) the young woman's decision not to press suit, and the apologies by the University to the young man all took place in a sequence that is better understood by merging the two inextricably interconnected articles, retaining this title as a Redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you believe should be merged into the Mattress Performance article that is not already there? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title - People will search for it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory are you suggesting merging Mattress Performance under the title Columbia University rape controversy? The main issue with the merge is the exact reason you highlighted, the defendant was foudn innocent in the eyes of the law and public opinion. Evidence presented by Nuggesser favors his arguments, yet the Mattress Performance has been written in a tone which favors Sulkowicz's account. Here on Wikipedia we strive for NPOV, therefore we never give undue weight to the minority view. Valoem talk contrib 23:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. (As I stated in my first comment in this interminable discussion, my preference would be to delete both articles on the grounds that the entire thing was based the kind of angry relationship breakup that produced an evidently false accusation of rape months after the fact. IMO this whole controversy has been UNDUE and the New York press, in particular, ought to be ashamed.) A Redirect simply means that people searching for and clicking on Columbia University rape controversy will, when they click, find themselves on the Mattress performance page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory I agree with what you are saying, but people still come to Wikipedia for information our only goal is to make sure the information is neutral. The articles are never going to be both deleted, so it is best to recommend inclusion of both views and state the controversy so people can make their own opinion. NPOV is the truest form of freedom of speech I would recommend including messages and legal outcomes with the defense for both. Valoem talk contrib 00:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do not, however, refight long legal battles on Wikipedia. We summarize.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. One article for all info on this entire event. With the hope that we can keep it NPOV, present both sides, and be reasonable succinct.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, it seems like some of this discussion (including my own points) are not totally relevant the question here. There are acceptable reasons for forking content. Editor conduct isn't one of them, and neither is NPOV (per se). I think the key considerations are: (1) article length, and (2) appropriate level of detail. In the interest of resolving this protracted discussion, could we focus in on these considerations going forward? Nblund (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a tempest in a teapot. A very interesting thing has transpired. A student attempted to employ performance art to get a fellow student ejected from a campus. That is unprecedented in art. "[S]he will continue the piece until the man she accuses of attacking her is no longer on campus, whether he leaves or is expelled or graduates"[12] There is no precedent in art for a performance piece focussed on getting a fellow student to leave a campus. Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
rename the redirect? User:Bus stop. You mentioned (above) renaming target page after we merge these 2 articles. Did you have a suggested name? Or does anyone want to propose a new name?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suggested "Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University."[13] Bus stop (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (conditional) or Keep If Merge I'd caution all to avoid a repeat of the behavior that led to this split, namely maintaining the allegations are secondary to the art piece (as suggested by the current title "Mattress Performance.") Since the majority of coverage in reliable sources concerns the controversy surrounding the art piece and allegation, an article covering the art and allegation comprehensively should do so as a controversy with a title reflecting that, e.g. "Columbia University Mattress Performance controversy" James J. Lambden (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this nomination is an attempt to remove everything that doesn't suit nominator's POV narrative. Alliumnsk (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is kept, Alliumnsk, even this article's title should be changed. I don't think "Columbia University rape controversy" is the ideal title for this article. My guess would be that there have been other Columbia University rape controversies. Importantly, this incident involves performance art. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The two articles should be merged, under a title like 'Columbia University rape controversy'. The performance art is an aspect, albeit very prominent, of what should really be a single article. NPalgan (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - simply notable and covers WP:GNG. The article has plenty of great sourcing and IDONTLIKEIT does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No offense BabbaQ, but this comment itself kind of seems like an IDONTLIKEIT argument. I think we all agree that this topic itself is GNG, the question is whether it's reasonable to have a separate article that deals with the assault accusation and lawsuit independently of the art project. I think the relevant consideration here is whether this qualifies under the guidelines in WP:SPINOFF, or whether it's better to handle this issue with a single entry. Thoughts? Nblund (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge -- as per GNG. (A very timely cautionary tale and societal marker, IMO, I must add.) Quis separabit? 04:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is really enough here for two articles--ot as a POV fork, but for different emphases: the Mattress Performance article is about the subject as a work of performance art, not the alleged rape. Possibly some of the material from there should be moved here or removed as duplicative, but this in what should be the title for the basic article. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The work of art and every other aspect of this event are inextricably linked. We are kidding ourselves if we convince ourselves that there are two articles here. There is only one article. There was a romantic relationship. There was a claim of rape. There were tentative claims of that rape presented to both the college and the NYC police. Neither of those claims brought about the desired result for the person allegedly raped. That person was an aspiring artist. As part of that person's course requirement a senior thesis had to be created. That person decided to turn that senior thesis, by means of performance art, into a focussing of negative attention on the alleged rapist. The artwork ran its full course. Eventually the mattress was carried onto the graduation podium. The alleged rapist made known a collection of emails sent by both parties both before the alleged rape and after the alleged rape. The alleged rapist hired a lawyer to bring a lawsuit against various parties. The single article that should be written should expand on all these things. There should only be one article and it should not be only about the work of art. The work of art can be described thoroughly but the title of the article should not be Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). The title I would suggest is "Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University." That is what the article is about. The article is about "Performance art rape allegations". Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about whether this article passes WP:GNG are kind of missing the point. We already have this article under a different name- the question isn't whether we should have this article, but whether we should have two of these articles. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The keep votes have taken that into consideration. Editors voting keep believe that there is no POV fork and has enough material to pass both GNG and splitting rationale, also if merged many believe this should be the primary title. The merge voter believe the is enough to pass GNG, but information may be combined. Redirect votes are unclear, and delete votes believe this information does not belong on the encyclopedia. I am not seeing any consensus, but the keep votes have certainly been more eloquent than simply passing GNG. Valoem talk contrib 20:55, 3 June 2016 (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. That something didn't happen doesn't mean it isn't notable, and this is clearly a well-documented topic. I appreciate the arguments to merge, but I can't see any obvious target which wouldn't be overwhelmed to undue weight levels by having all this material added..  ‑ Iridescent 19:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney[edit]

Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably passes WP:GNG, but seems to be political WP:FANCRUFT and fail the WP:10YT as it was ultimately discussion of planning that was never implemented and had no lasting effect on anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All of the content in this article is already mentioned in Mitt Romney's presidential campaign article so this article is unnecessary. JayJayWhat did I do? 23:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The content of this previously DYK-featured article is more detailed and expansive than Mitt Romney's presidential campaign article. We should not seek to actively destroy knowledge. A previous merger proposal failed due to opposition by MB298 and others. (And, BTW, I can assure you I am not a "fan" of Mitt Romney. The Readiness Project's transition case study, however, has been repeatedly mentioned in the popular press as a source of study by 2016 transition planners at NAPA and elsewhere. There is a growing body of inbound links to this article, as a result.) LavaBaron (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, Lava, no one is destroying knowledge!! The inbound links can direct to the campaign article. Reywas92Talk 17:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the main campaign article does not contain the level of detail as this standalone article. Once it is deleted, as you support, the detailed information will be eviscerated from WP. In general, we should not make an effort to destroy knowledge. LavaBaron (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not precisely accurate since there is a tacit approval in the fact that a number of experienced editors have expanded or edited the article, and others have linked to it over the course of the months since it was written. I take it that these are the "others" referred to by Lavabaron.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I considered nominating that article as well, but as there is a non-trivial chance Trump wins the election, that article would become valuable (as the Obama cognate is now). If Trump loses tho, to the trashbin it goes imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As User:LavaBaron writes, the page is larger than the section at the Romney campaign page. Moreover, presidential transitions are a topic of significant and growing notability. The topic passes WP:GNG. But it also passes notability, imo, because it is documentably a subject that people want to know about, as evidenced by this news google search on "leavitt transition of Mitt Romney " [14]. This page needs expansion, not deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This notification from the page creator comes perilously close to canvassing E.M.Gregory AusLondonder (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that I had written [15] to User:LavaBaron to say that I had found the page just as I was about to start such a page, so it is akin to notifying a page creator. Also, User:AusLondonder (an old and persistent wikihound, er... follower of mine) ought to courtesy notify the user about whom he is making accusations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem confused. The article for deletion is the Romney article, not the Trump article. AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, as per WP:APPNOTE it is not canvassing. E.M.Gregory had edited on the Trump transition article and several editors in this thread began discussing possibly merging that one as well. As per WP:APPNOTE I left every single editor who had ever made a content (non-CE) related edit to the Trump article a neutral note to inform them it was being discussed here. The notes did not exhort them to !vote in a certain way and they were left for every editor on that article, not ones I'd hand-picked because I knew they'd be sympathetic. Please better familiarize yourself with what WP:CAN is and is not before making these types of pot-stirring accusations. LavaBaron (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under that logic you could have the articles "Mitt Romney presidential campaign fundraising", "MR PC media issues", "MR PC tax returns", "MR PC travel", etc, all of which theoretically pass GNG and are things people want to know about. If this article is a little longer than that section, there is no reason it cannot be merged. Reywas92Talk 17:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One !vote per editor please. If you're trying to change your !vote from "delete" to "merge" please do so by striking the bold "delete" in your original comment and replacing it with "merge". This will help the closing admin keep track of things. LavaBaron (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010 was passed in 2010. It provided funding plus access and briefings to the candidates of the major parties, starting the day the party convention ends. The reason for its passage was "was inspired by a report released in January that gave credit to George W. Bush and his aides for a timely and well-organized transition to Barack Obama's administration. The report said modern-day national security and economic concerns should trump political concerns about planning for a presidency at the height of campaign season. "Everyone agrees that in this post-September 11 security environment, presidential transitions should not be left to chance," said Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), a lead sponsor of the bill. Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) agreed. "Candidates taking deliberate steps to ensure a smooth transition should not be criticized as arrogantly 'measuring the White House drapes' before Election Day," he said. "Such planning should be encouraged and supported."[16] In Other Words, since 2010, as UserLavaBaron states above, the nature and urgency of Presidential transitions has shifted much as it did after the advent of horseless carriages and radio. Much as the 20th ammendment moved Inaguration Day, the Transition Act changed the timetable of Presidential transitions. We now have federally recognized transition teams in place and ready to get to work 6 months before the inauguration. One is made up of elephants, the other of donkeys, but both are quasi-governmental outfits, complete with security clearances. You or I or whoever may not like Romney, or take Trump seriously (in fact, I rather suspect that the doubts many of us harbor about Trump's fitness for the job are part of what is driving the current wave of media coverage of the Romney transition team) but my point is that while transition teams have long been significant, post 2010 they where bumped up into the status of quasi-official governments-in-waiting. Coverage on Wikipedia merely recognizes that reality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have an article on that Act or on presidential transitions in general that can also cover specific campaign activities. We're not saying this is meaningless information altogether, just that this is redundant to the main article (where it would be WP:PRESERVED, as a note to admin regarding the prior comment) and need not be duplicated in a separate one.Reywas92Talk 17:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're all friends here and this is pretty informal. You can just say "I'm not saying" instead of the imperial "we're not saying". LavaBaron (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, Solid, in-depth sources that ought to be used to expand this article include: [17], [18], and [19]. In addition, the article needs to be expanded to include considerations of the impact of the Romney transition planning effort on the Trump transition team in article such as this: [20].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article about what would have happened if Mitt Romney had won an election that in reality he lost is not encyclopedic content — we're an encyclopedia of real things, not a directory of alternate history. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't read the article. Not a single sentence in it talks talks about what "would have happened if Mitt Romeny won the election". The article is about a project that spent $8.9 million and employed several hundred people during the year 2012. That's what this history article is about, a real event that actually took place from May to November of 2012. LavaBaron (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is an article about the planning of an administration, and is well sourced, and even more sources have been found by E.M.Gregory. Some editors appear to be scared of cruft, which this is not; rather, our readers will likely search for this article as the major election revs up. It will also make a terrible precedent. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Reywas92, AusLondonder, and Bearcat. The information is sufficiently covered elsewhere, no need for a standalone article on a hypothetical event.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "hypothetical event" - planning for a transition was a real event that spent $8.9 million and employed several hundred people during the year 2012. That's what this history article is about, a real event that actually occurred. LavaBaron (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Reywas92.--Catlemur (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An odd case of WP:CRYSTAL. The gist of this article is "this planning for a situation happened, and here's the details, but because something else happened instead, nothing planned here ever happened." We're suffering from recentism here as well, insofar as there are sources, but in the end, nothing happened, nor was it a freak occurrence; it's rather a standard part of the election process. MSJapan (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, MSJapan, the planning did happen. In fact, $8.9 million was spent on the act of planning. An actual act. We have all sorts of WP articles on planning as an act in an of itself, even when those plans are never implemented. See, for instance Defence Scheme No. 1, Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, etc. LavaBaron (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An exceedingly odd argument by MSJapan. We of course have entire categories populated by significant things that were planned but never happened The Boston Museum, Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom, but this is an article about a planning process that happened, and that is deemed to have a major influence going forward, not only in being the standard to which this year's planning processes are being held, but as the namesake of the Edward "Ted" Kaufman and Michael Leavitt Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015. I urge editors new to this topic to give the page a read before iVoting, because there are serious misimpressions conveyed in this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: You think this "planned transition" is on the same historical notability level as Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom? AusLondonder (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never said or implied that, nor is it the point. I did think I was being amusing when I compared it to one of the more notable planned invasions in world history (NOJOKESONWIKIPEDIA - I forget that sometimes) What I said that we have many articles about planning projects. Not only military invasions, but articles on Olympic bids, planned museums, colleges, canals, coups d'etat, and more. The argument that because the transition never too place, the topic is not notable is simply not valid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely on the same historical level as Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and The Boston Museum. LavaBaron (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, to elaborate on my original vote a bit, no it is not. As far as I am concerned, this is a process that occurs as the result of the aforementioned act passed in 2010. Therefore, it's a normal process that will happen in every election, one the side of the non-incumbent party. However, despite all the planning, etc., in the grand scheme of history, nothing happened. Therefore, it is worthy of mention (perhaps) in another article, but not to the extent that it should have its own article. WP:RECENTISM allows for sources, but in the end, nothing happened in the historical neutral sense, and it isn't going to make a difference to any other planning scheme in any other election. It's an isolated non-event with no effect. Also, the purpose of AfD is not to have keep voters fighting with delete voters; the outcome of voting is based on arguments weighed by third parties, not volume of argument. MSJapan (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the article has an "Impact" section precisely because the Romney impact has had an impact. That is why the Edward "Ted" Kaufman and Michael Leavitt Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015 is named for the leader of the Romney Readiness Project. There's more, and more to be added, but the point here id precisely THAT IT DID HAVE AN IMPACT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron - I would strongly dispute that it is on the same level as Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. That has much greater in-depth coverage. The Boston Museum article is of borderline notability itself, quite frankly. And the circumstances are entirely different to this. It wasn't an event or planned event. AusLondonder (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're wrong. LavaBaron (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, The Boston Museum is an excellent example of why planning processes are historically important and WP notable. The Museum was a proposal to fill a space on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway which was part of the Big Dig. It was a major proposal, major people as backers, major historians and museum designers, no fewer than 2 marquee architects at different stages, plenty of coverage in RS. More to the point, it was part of a major reshaping of the downtown of a major American city, a story that cannot be told without discussing the reasons why such a museum was proposed, and what was chosen instead. We keep these articles because they are notable, functional, and the type of encyclopedic topics that users go to Wikipedia expecting to to find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that while it has been asserted that this even lacks independent notability, lengthy discussions by political scientist and political journalists (see this book search: [ https://www.google.com/#q=romney+presidential+transition+2012&tbm=bks] show that it does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closing Admin - Please observe that several "Delete" !votes have advanced the same argument that has continuously been rebutted by multiple editors without sur-rebuttal or explanation by the deletionists in question. As per our definitions of consensus, "drive-by voting" is not conventionally used to determine the outcome of an AfD; please consider "drive-bys" within the context of superior argumentation advanced by "Keep" !voters. LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather obscene assertion, that you have an inherently superior perspective. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Most delete arguments in this discussion concede that this article passes WP:GNG (it looks like there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources). Instead, it appears that the debate is focused on whether this information should be incorporated into the article about Mitt Romney's failed presidential campaign, or whether it should be it's own article. First of all, those kinds of merge discussions are usually hammered out on an article's talk page. Second, WP:PAGEDECIDE specifically cautions against articles becoming "too unwieldy." The article for Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 is already very long and merging the entirety of this article would make it far more unwieldy and lengthy. I think a much better option would be to include a very brief summary of the contents of this article at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and then direct readers here with {{see also}} or {{main article}}. For those reasons, I think we should keep this as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron and E.M.Gregory: Everyone (including you two) is entitled to their opinion and !vote. You have had your say. Kindly stop with the WP:BLUDGEON its becoming WP:DISRUPTive. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excuse me? It would be useful if you would come up with a valid, policy-based argument. Your assertion of WP:FANCRUFT is frankly insulting to page creator, article was written at a time when the 2012 was being discussed in major media out of serious concern that the Trump transition planning was lagging dangerously (as in dangerous to the nation, given the near-disaster of the inadequacy of the 2008 transition planning) behind. Your second argument, WP:10YT is inaccurate, given the fact that this transition is already discussed in a serious way not only at book length, but in political science & government management journals and in numerous books. I am frankly insulted by your assertion of BLUDGEON when both the article creator and I have been working to bring sources to both this page and to the page itself and to make valid policy-based arguments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrators are no doubt already aware that across AFD many iVotes are hastily cast on the assumption that all politics-related articles are, as Nom put it, WP:FANCRUFT, and some (not necessarily on this page) reflexively cast "against" keeping articles that seem to support whatever party or position the editor dislikes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have voted GOP in every election since I was 18, and voted for Romney. Probably not voting for Trump though. That you think anyone who disagrees with the value in this article is partisan says more about you than the article. This content can easily be merged into the Romney election article. There is no reason for it here. The concept of presidential transitions is certainly very notable. But that doesn't mean each transition plan is notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, an editor above stated that if this is deleted he will personally delete the Trump transition article if Trump loses in November. It is not only the partisan tone of that remark that rankles, it is that this article will be taken as a precedent. And I firmly believe that Presidential transition planning is a serious and encyclopedic topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gaijin42 You have made three comments in this thread. I have made five. That two comment difference is not indicative of WP:BLUDGEON or disruption. What is disruptive, however, is:
  • ... when you slap up an off-topic comment in which you make wild (yet, as just shown, easily dismissed) personal attacks in an attempt to salvage a failing AfD by impugning the GF of others with an opinion different than your own.
  • ... when you make no attempt to properly indent your comment so that it, consequently, sits in the middle of the page and makes it difficult for others to register their opinions in proper thread order. I'm sorry this AfD doesn't seem to be going your way but you must at least try to work with the community in a collaborative spirit instead of throwing a fit. Given your colorful block history, one would have thought this was a lesson you'd already learned.
  • ... when you recite your voting history in USA elections. If you want to show-off your civic mindedness you can set-off fireworks, wave a flag, or belt-out the Stars and Stripes Forever from the comfort of your home; we don't do that on WP. You should be evaluating articles on merit, not on your personal political proclivities. (Frankly, the fact you "voted for Romney" [sic] probably calls into question your overall soundness of judgment.)
All the best -LavaBaron (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no such issues. The article in question is basically four paragraphs and a lede. The merge target is sufficiently long and comprehensive. With only minor trimming it could easily fit comfortably in its new home without giving undue weight or skewing the page length. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. I've read through the arguments here, and I remain unconvinced that this would meet WP:UNDUE. When I originally looked through the arguments, I was worried that it would be too much, but to be honest, I feel the most important portions of this article already exist in the main article's readiness project section. I think this article can just be redirected back to the main article and it would be fine. Nomader (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've got no dog in this fight, I can see both how it is crystal-bally esoterica and also documentation of a little-known aspect of the 2012 campaign. I suggest that if this is kept it be retitled Readiness Project, which might lead to clearer focus. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The useful information in this article already exists at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Whether it meets GNG or not is secondary, we have a lot of things that meet GNG but don't have their own articles because they are better suited for article sections. Pinguinn 🐧 19:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as best connected to that, unlikely anything future better for this. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this was something that the government felt was important enough to invest a good deal of time and money into so it appears to me to meet the GNG with the RSes that cover it. With regard to the merge per WP:NOPAGE it would make the Romney article unwieldy to put this in that and put a bit much weight on his presidential campaign compared with his governorship and other work. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The C of E One clarification, I don't think anyone is proposing to merge this into the Romney article, but rather into the Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012 article Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gaijin42 you have had your say. Kindly stop with the WP:BLUDGEON by replying to every single comment. Anyway, WP:NOPAGE also applies to the Romney campaign article which is, in addition to the bio, very unwieldy. LavaBaron (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to see an example of utter bludgeoning (by LavaBaron) go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (2nd nomination) or indeed just look at all the comments above. What a brass neck. AusLondonder (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, possibly merge, to the campaign. It's part of that topic, and insufficently substantial for a WP:SS subarticle.  Sandstein  18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein, I truly do not see this topic as part of the campaign. I see it as an initiative related to, but not "part of" the campaign, somewhat like a "campaign" book (see: Profiles in Courage ) Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. We don't roll those articles into the respective campaign articles, even tho Clinton sought and was given that job, and Kennedy wrote that book, as part of a run for the Presidency. We give then stand alone articles because they have reality independent of the campaign. My argument is that a post-2010 Planned Presidential transition team has reality independent of the campaign. Independent (government provided) funding, GSO provided office space, a staff. Also, however, a very specific mission (a smooth transition of the government to new officials who are prepared to handle financial, military or other emergencies on day one) that is separate form the goals of the campaign. These transitions matter, and merit stand alone article here, just as they merit the scholarly, policy wonk, and journalistic attention this one has garnered independently of the assessments of the campaign. (Romney's Transition team is highly regarded and held up as a model; his campaign, not so much.) Thank you, Citizen E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had he won the election, this would be part of the coverage of his presidency. As it is, it existed only as part of, and in the political and social context of, his campaign, in my view.  Sandstein  17:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Everyone should be fine with keeping content about this subject on the project. Whether its better for readers to have a separate article, it seems unlikely, but I just don't care that much.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This new headline: Mike Leavitt advising Donald Trump’s transition team. He's not endorsing Trump, but he thinks the transition process is important so he's working it. I'll add to article shortly. Note that while this is not precisely the same as a former Governor logging to an AFD to iVote Keep on the grounds that this topic/article is independently notable, it sort of is. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing to expand this article, as sources continue to be published that make the "unique" nature and significance of the Romney transition process clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: This short article is covered in the article(s) covering Romney's campaign, so I see little reason to assume it can find two legs to stand on. Furthermore, I don't see there being much more noteworthy information that could be scrounged up to discuss this hypothetical situation that hasn't been seen as a possibility in about four years now. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 11:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note DarthBotto initially iVoted delete, replaced delete with merge following my rename response below.
Note I did not notice the response below; I realized that the text of my input aligned more with a merge vote, rather than a delete vote. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney, 2012 or 2012 Planned Romney presidential transition to avoid misleading editors like the previous comment who appear to think that this was a "hypothetical situation" or an event that did not occur. And, even more ignorantly, to assume that there is not possibility that a significant planning process may generate "noteworthy information" as it is used to improve future planning processes. This one, for example, has already generated the Edward "Ted" Kaufman and Michael Leavitt Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015 .E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate !vote struck. One per customer please. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that this would be interpreted as a second iVote, just a suggestion to rename for clarity after keeping.
  • I am arguing here that it is simply more efficient to keep this now, since this topic will inevitable be the focus of journalistic and scholarly scrutiny in the months ahead.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding article now with analysis from a recent authoritative article, of which I fearlessly predict that there will be a spate whether we transition to Johnson, Sanders, Trump or Clinton this winter. Whoever wins, transition planning teams past, including this one, cannot halp but come up for re-analysis. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article subject is noteworthy, especially since the 2010 law regarding transition plans and teams. ALPolitico (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per "Wikipedia is not news about something that didn't happen in the end." Some of this material would be useful in a general article about presidential transitions, but as it is what we have is basically political fancruft. Mangoe (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll weigh in now, what the hell... While one could make a "crystal ball" argument against this piece, it seems that sourcing is adequate for a GNG pass and that a great deal of information is apt to be lost in any potential merge. As I mention above, I think that a name change for the piece to Readiness Project would solve much of the theoretical difficulty. Carrite (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing is enough to pass WP:GNG and it covers more than any of the merge/redirect targets and shouldn't be merged back into already long articles. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:29, 1 June 2016 (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. This is the kind of article which obviously attracts passionate opinion on both sides. Reading through all the comments, sometimes it's hard to find real policy-based arguments on either side. Still, the weight of numbers are clearly on the keep side. Since I don't see anything that's overwhelmingly egregious on the keep side, or overwhelmingly convincing on the delete side, I don't see any reason not to just go with the headcount.

The one comment that leaves me particularly puzzled is, I do not dispute the notability of the topic, but I do dispute the fact it needs its own article on Wikipedia. Notability is pretty much what it's all about. If you think it's notable, then it's hard to see why you think it doesn't deserve coverage in the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain[edit]

Saudi-led intervention in Bahrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a new article which is a WP:COATRACKWP:POVFORK for Anti-Saudi sentiment. It clearly has NPOV issues, implying that the Saudi intervention was primarily for financial reasons, ignoring much of the surrounding tensions. The article it has splintered from, Bahraini uprising of 2011 appears to cover these issues in depth, yet this splinter article simply presents one side of the debate. It's worth noting that the creator of the article has been trying to push the article for DYK, and despite 3 editors turning him down he keeps asking for re-review. When I looked at it, I felt the article should not be on Wikipedia at all, it is a POV piece from the title to the end. WormTT(talk) 18:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Worm That Turned's analysis. This deserves a mention, but this article is not salvageable. If there is no other article on this topic, create it with a new name and no POV issues. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: The article is clearly notable. Plenty of plenty sources do exist on the subject and some of them are used. The sources are directly related and I fully reject the "coatrack" allegation. The article is so notable per sources that it warrants a separate article. You can take POV issues to the article talk page, if there are any and for your information POV issues have nothing to do with AFD! The DYK nomination has also nothing to do with AFD! --Mhhossein (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant POVFORK, not COATRACK. Apologies, I've struck and corrected above. The POV issue are relevant, per my subsequent comment, and the DYK nomination and your refusal to acknowledge any issue was what lead me to nominate for deletion. WormTT(talk) 08:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As you see there at the DYK nomination page ([21] & [22]), I had addressed most of the points raised and I could naturally do nothing about the just-thrown issues which were not specific. So, by saying "the DYK nomination and your refusal to acknowledge any issue was what lead me to nominate for deletion" are you indicating that you have used this AFD as a punitive measure? --Mhhossein (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Worm That Turned: Although you're an admin editing almost 8 years here, I should tell you that please refer to our deletion reasons and you'll see that almost non of what made you jump into this AFD has nothing to do with AFD and deletion. POV issues? no problem, discuss it on the talk page. Surrounding tensions are ignored? Discuss it on the talk page of the article. I really see nothing more than POV issues throughout your allegations. So, if there's a guideline based reason that you can have for us, please mention it or I encourage withdrawing the nomination. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to re-read those reasons yourself, Mhhossein. Firstly, it states that it is not an exhaustive list, deletion can be for any reason that gains community consensus, but happily that's not the case here. This deletion meets criteria 5, Content fork (and a POV content fork too), and also criteria 14 - not suitable for an encyclopedia under WP:NOTSOAPBOX. WormTT(talk) 08:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Criteria #5 does not clearly apply here as we have two entirely different topic here (let on the "POV fork" allegation). As I said, there are plenty of plenty sources directly about "Saudi led intervention in Bahrain", which it self is a daughter article for Bahrain uprising. Based on what you say, Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen is WP:CFORK for Yemeni Civil War (2015–present), is it? Btw, please show us how you found this well sourced and supported topic a WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE (Although the Uprising article actually has better information than this so not much sure about this) OR INCUBATE Take this off mainspace and let the creator work on it, if he can get it through AFC then maybe we can take another look. The article is POV atm as I pointed out earlier. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you support your allegation and Merge opinion based on our guide lines. Is it not notable or sth else? --Mhhossein (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is supported by many sources and even it has been the title of some of reliable sources which are already used:
  1. Saudi Arabian intervention in Bahrain driven by visceral Sunni fear of Shias
  2. Bahrain's Crisis: Saudi Forces Intervene
  3. Bronson, Rachel. "Saudi Arabia's Intervention In Bahrain: A Necessary Evil or a strategic blunder?
  4. Nuruzzaman, Mohammed. "Politics, Economics and Saudi Military Intervention in Bahrain

Also, there are some other sources using the exact term in the body and I don't see necessary to provide them. Per Mhhossein, I think content forking is not suitable here and we can have two separate notable stand alone articles. So, I think that the article is encyclopedic and we have some other similar cases such as:

  1. Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen which is a part of Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)
  2. American-led intervention in Syria, Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War and some others which are parts of Syrian Civil War
  3. Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) which is a part of War in Donbass
  4. etc.

So I think that the main article, i,e Bahraini uprising of 2011, has to be edited so that we have a separate section dedicated to the foreign intervention and put the brief explanations into that and have the details and analysis in the current article. I suggest the nominator to resolve his issues with DYK and/or POV on their suitable pages.Saff V. (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing one thing: none of those sources say that Saudi-Arabia leads the intervention. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HyperGaruda: You might be right but my doubt stems from plenty of sources using the term 'Saudi-led' or something similar. You can check them: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and etc. Although I think you're objection is reasonable, I prefer to discuss this issue in it's suitable page if a 'requested move' is started.Saff V. (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCES SUPPORT TITLE. The sources in the article itself do support Led by Saudia Arabia. The items above are examples from other articles. Here are three of the refs from "this" article, with a quote.

  • Ref 1 Bahrain's Crisis: Saudi Forces Intervene "News reports indicate that forces from other member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), including 500 police from the United Arab Emirates, will soon be joining the Saudis in Bahrain."
  • Ref 2 Saudi Troops Enter Bahrain to Help Put Down Unrest "Saudi Arabia’s military rolled into Bahrain on Monday, threatening to escalate a local political conflict into a regional showdown with Iran"
  • Ref 6 Gulf states send forces "A Saudi official said about 1,000 Saudi Arabian troops arrived in Bahrain early on Monday, and later the UAE said it had sent some 500 police officers."

This is a only a sample, there are others. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - Exclusively detailed in many reliable sources.[31] [32] Capitals00 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Bahraini uprising of 2011, of which this is a content (if not POV) fork, which should be avoided. No indication that this particular aspect of the uprising (the military invasion) has so much well-sourced content that a spinoff article is appropriate per WP:SS.  Sandstein  16:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein: I really doubt if you've really checked the sources used in the article or followed the comments. There are plenty of reliable sources directly dedicated to the "the military invasion" aspect of the uprising. --Mhhossein (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for its own article, the current contents are not convincing of keeping by itself. It's likely also best connected to the event article itself. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That this element of the broader conflict has its own particular details and is notable has been proven by reliable source after reliable source. There's a reason that material gets spun off from a main article into related pages, after all, since putting every last bit of relevant detail into Bahraini uprising of 2011 would turn it into an unwieldy novella rather than an encyclopedia page. As well, I have to say that it's rather frustrating to see arguments along the lines of "I don't like a specific X, Y, and Z among the article's body text, so get rid of the whole thing." This is a deletion discussion. I can see that maybe the article doesn't strictly meet NPOV standards right now, but the opinion that it does is just that: a subjective opinion. The solution to that (which is possibly true, but still subjective) is to expand the article, not quash it entirely when its subject is clearly notable.
  • r.e. allegations made here of editors behaving badly and doing bad things: I don't think it's clear from an outside view that anyone has engaged in uncivil POV-pushing and crossed any lines. Mere strong disagreement is normal, not malicious. Even if line-crossing uncivil POV-pushing is found to be going on, which I (again) wouldn't agree with, this is neither the time nor the place to litigate it. Go to WP:ANI or someplace else. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bahraini uprising of 2011 is a large article (187 kb), so it is usual to make sub-article for a such a large article. Deletion is very bad way to get rid of what you may dislike. Even if it has "Anti-Saudi sentiment", it should be solved by using POV tag and discussion and the other ways. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Coffee: Per relist guideline, discussions should be relisted when they have "only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy." Which one is true in our case? --Mhhossein (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mhhossein: I'm actually not required to provide any more information than what's stated in the above {{relist}} template, unless I'm performing a 3rd or higher relist (as is stated in the very policy you're quoting). - I do not comment on discussions that I may close in the future (to prevent users from claiming I somehow "partook in the discussion", and am therefore "involved" - a common tactic of users who don't like the closing result).... but I will note that relists are at administrative discretion (and this relist fell well within that discretionary range). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seemed (seems) questionable to my eyes. Anyway, thanks for your response and explanations. Mhhossein (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Seems fairly sensible to me. Numerically, support and opposes are about equal. IMO there's a strength of argument towards deletion, but not a strong consensus. That means if an admin were to close it, the most appropriate close would probably be no consensus, and so re-listing to allow more debate is a sensible solution. WormTT(talk) 13:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Worm That Turned: How did you counted the opinions? are serious by saying "Numerically, support and opposes are about equal"? By the way, there's an absolutely strong argument towards 'Keep', in my opinion. Mhhossein (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Mhhossein: I was just explaining the logic behind a relisting. There is no consensus here... yet WormTT(talk) 14:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah, you can naturally hold your own opinion. Likewise, I hold mine and believe that the clear consensus is to leave it kept. Mhhossein (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • And that is why you (and I) are poor people to close the discussion. WormTT(talk) 14:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further points from nominator: As we haven't reached consensus, I thought I'd challenge a few of the keep arguments -
    • I do not dispute the notability of the topic, but I do dispute the fact it needs its own article on Wikipedia.
    • There have been a number of arguments that we should keep as we have similar articles. I disagree with those arguments, largely due to WP:OTHERSTUFF, but also due to difference in the nature of the interventions. Intervention in war is often for humanitarian reasons, peacekeeping. It is often co-ordinated by one country, and therefore COUNTRY-led makes sense. This was intervention by invitation, and by agreement of the Gulf Cooperation Council so it wasn't Saudi-led in the same way.
    • Regarding the idea that Bahraini uprising of 2011 is too long, that's an issue which should be handled at that article, which can definitely be trimmed. I also agree that parts could be split out, but it could be done in a balanced, neutral manner, not focussing on one external country's involvement.
    • There have been arguments that NPOV should be dealt with on the talk page or through dispute resolution. Where possible I would agree with this way of handling things, however, in this case I could not see how the article could be brought back to a neutral point of view, it is set up to focus on one part of the uprising, and without looking at the uprising as a whole (especially the Sunni-Shia dispute), there is no way to write this article neutrally. Of course, we already do that at the main article, making this one a POV fork or if sufficient balance is brought to the article, just a straight content fork.
    • There have been a number of straw man arguments that this deletion is down to behaviour. This may be my fault for explaining how I found the article in the first place, however, to make it clear - this nomination is not intended as a punishment in any way, nor do I believe Mhhossein's behaviour needs to be taken anywhere for further review. I'm an admin and one who would have been happy to address behavioural issues at his talk page had I felt that was where the issue lay. Any keep or delete arguments based on users behaviour should be disregarded by the closing admin. WormTT(talk) 13:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This was an international military intervention from one country into another, and reported internationally on the news, in addition a number of sources discussing the event are referenced. Clearly it is notable, it shouldn't have been nominated for AfD. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, Can you please check what you've done? You appear to have included it in lists where the topic is already included. Also, how is this related to terrorism? WormTT(talk) 16:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned Yes of course, I had to check it before including them and thank you for reminding. I'll resolve the issue. Now, I think terrorism is not suitable for this article to be included there. Thank you again. --Mhhossein (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A clearly notable topic. AusLondonder (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. distinct enough for a separate article. Some of the delete !votes seem to be based on political considerations, e.g."due to difference in the nature of the intervention" DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2016 (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 provisional keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Given that the editors, other than the SPA, who initially voted delete have changed to keep or provisional keep, I am withdrawing this nomination. I will take this to the BLP noticeboard, however, as there are a number of edits in the edit history that likely will require over sighting. Safiel (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Shortt[edit]

James Shortt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have courtesy blanked the page pending resolution of this AfD. Highly negative BLP that has existed since February 2009. Not an outright attack nor an unsourced negative BLP, so CSD G10 doesn't apply. However, this is still extremely problematic and I recommend deletion in the strongest possible terms, given the non notability of the subject and the highly negative tone of the article. Safiel (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is counter-intuitive to blank an article that is under AfD debate. How can we look at the merits (yes I know look at earlier versions).Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a rare situation, normally AfD's shouldn't be blanked, but given the negativity of this article, I thought it prudent to do so. People can always check the edit history of the article to evaluate it for themselves. Safiel (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the 2 weeks that the AfD would take pales in the time its already been up so ....I think blanking was not necessary. My vote below.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article should go back up, for the nonce; highly irregular to delete an old article during AFD. Furthermore, solid sources, like the Times of London, exist, and someone may want to rewrite and source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the article. It is sourced and not as negative as many other articles I have seen. No reason to blank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article history shows it was categorically created in 2009 as an attack page by an individual associated with a fraud-shaming site, and though sourcing has been added, none if is particularly good quality. The vast majority of the article's text appears to be disparaging of the subject, both expressed an implied (for example listing a excessively large number of suspect aliases heavy implies the subject is a shifty person). This is not what Wikipedia is for; we're not a pillory. There are other sites for that. Furthermore, this is a biography of a living person that, for all evidence I can see, is not notable in any way. He published a few minor books and teaches martial arts, neither of which have been at a level that would constitute notability. I had never heard of the subject and I only became aware of this article because I was doing a round-up of military imposters, and discovered many inappropriate articles that were created on Wikipedia by shaming sites, all of which have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs) 07:52, May 24, 2016‎
  • Comment Had the article been caught immediately after its creation, it could and should have been deleted as an attack page. However, it was subsequently sourced and subsequent editors have made good faith (though misguided) efforts to save what should have been deleted. Safiel (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsupported claims do not contribute to notability and (the attack nature aside) the claims of the subject are shown to be questionable. Trimming everything down we have authorship of a few books and teaching martial arts. He does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure I understand this discussion. I searched his name and came up with "Irish chieftain at centre of probe into internet threats" [33] a 1999 article from the Sunday Times. A remarkable story. The blanked article is sourced to this article: [34] among others. Here's an excerpt from a recent article "Shortt’s exposure in 2009 created a storm when it emerged he was allowed access to the highly sensitive government building to advise on Cabinet Office security." [35]. Sounds like a notable scam artist. We have articles on scam artists. What's the argument just paring this one down and Keeping it?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sun and the Daily Mail are both tabloids, which according to notability rules, is not sufficient to warrant having his own article (See WP:DOGBITESMAN and WP:SENSATION), especially someone who has not been convicted of a crime by a court of law. If other articles are based on similar sources, they also should be deleted. I've already had three other such "con artists" deleted.Legitimus (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I truly have doubts about what is going on here. Aside from the fact that that I hesitate to dismiss the Sun and Daily Mail so cavalierly, it does not seem legitimate to mention 2 of the 3 papers I referenced, and omit the long, detailed story in the Sunday Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just get a login page when I click the Sunday Times link, so I have no way to verify it.Legitimus (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that paywall protected sources (including newspapers) are valid. You can't dismiss them because they are behind a paywall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, Legitimus, I just realized that you've been editing since 2007 and above you claim to have been involved in a series of AFDs. I am truly surprised to hear that you were unaware that newspaper articles behind paywalls are valid sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it is you that I should be suspicious of. I said I couldn't verify it when asked why I didn't comment on it. I never said that it must be dismissed. I could just as easily say you are part of ARRSE and trying to pursue their agenda by keeping this article up, considering the straw-manning and ad hominem arguments you just resorted to, tactics favored by bullies and people who know they don't have a good position in an argument.Legitimus (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Embedding the text of the Sunday Times article here, copied from Proquest: " THE chief herald of Ireland has asked the gardai to investigate threats posted on the internet against his office and staff. The threats followed Brendan O'Donoghue's decision to strip an Irish chieftain, the MacCarthy Mor, of his title.

The Royal Galloglas, claiming to be "the duly sworn bodyguard" of the deposed chieftain (Terence McCarthy), has threatened to use all its resources "to investigate both the backgrounds and motives of the (Genealogical) Office and individuals involved in this matter, as is our sworn oath to protect and serve the true MacCarthy Mor". The group, in a statement posted on the internet from its "headquarters" in Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, said its G2 branch had begun an investigation. G2 is the code usually given to the intelligence divisions of armies and police forces. The statement was signed by James Shortt, describing himself as the colonel commandant of the guard. O'Donoghue said: "I have brought this to the notice of the gardai. When you have a group like this using militaristic terms and investigating the staff of the office, I thought that the gardai should be made aware. It is up to the police to assess the degree of risk." Shortt is the director-general of the International Bodyguard Association, and claims to have trained Nato forces in combat skills, and the American army and air force in anti-terrorist techniques. A former friar, Shortt says he fought the Taliban in 1992 on behalf of the Afghan defence ministry and has worked in eastern Europe and Russia training government bodyguards. In 1995 he acquired the title Baron of Castleshort. The Sunday Times has established that for the past two months Shortt has being renting Borrmount Manor, a large old house in Enniscorthy and the address posted on the internet as the headquarters of the guard. Shortt said yesterday that there was nothing sinister in his guard's investigation and he was not threatening officials in the herald's office. "I am not the sort of person who goes around threatening people. Our investigation is continuing and the results will be posted on the internet," he said. The Royal Galloglas guards, who marched in this year's St Patrick's Day parade in New York, have a uniform of rust kilts, grey military shirts and black berets. One member carried an axe. The guard, supposedly descended from medieval Gaelic warriors, are part of an elaborate entourage the MacCarthy Mor, now known simply as Terence McCarthy, has built worldwide since his recognition as a chief. McCarthy even created his own order of chivalry, called the Niadh Nask, whose members include two former taoisigh. Supporters of McCarthy, 42, a Belfast historian of humble origins, have refused to accept O'Donoghue's decision to withdraw the courtesy recognition of MacCarthy Mor given by the Genealogical Office in 1992. The unprecedented decision followed a two-year investigation by government genealogists after a rival came forward to claim the title. Essentially admitting that McCarthy managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the Genealogical Office, O'Donoghue has also invalidated a 1979 decision to ratify and confirm arms to McCarthy and has decided that a pedigree registered to him in 1980 lacks genealogical integrity. In a statement issued last week outlining the reasons for his decision, the chief herald said genealogical information McCarthy submitted to his office was contradictory, incomplete and misleading. He concluded: "It appears that reliance was placed to an excessive degree on uncorroborated statements and uncertified copies, transcriptions, or summaries of documents, the originals of which were not produced or were said to have been destroyed by fire, flood or explosion." Since 1944 the Genealogical Office has given courtesy recognition to about 20 senior descendants of the last inaugurated Gaelic chieftains. A number of applications for recognition are outstanding, which O'Donoghue says will now be looked at extra carefully. He said: "It may be there is a case to say that the entire system of recognition does not serve a useful purpose. There is a case for reviewing the system." McCarthy is understood to have retired to Morocco. In a statement on the internet he said: "I see no reason now to abdicate, and indeed believe that would be an act of cowardice ... For the present I will retire from public life, not from embarrassment, but because two years of constant attack have undermined my health to such an extent that my doctor advises complete rest." He may yet face legal challenges from dozens of disgruntled Irish- Americans to whom he sold and granted titles over the past decade. One said: "I personally raised more than $lm for McCarthy's organisations, in the name of correcting the injustices of centuries on the Irish nobility." E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject of this article has been trying unsuccessfully to have it removed since 2009. It appears the creators of the article have been protecting it from deletion. As you say, he is not of the level of fame or importance that rates a biography. Take it down and all of the others that the group that made it, put up. They seem to think this is their personal webpage to attack people they do not like. They have a website of their own for that. Wikipedia is not for this sort of thing. Attack pages have nothing to do with the purpose of this siteSterlingSpots (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC).— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Previous comment fails to address the reliable sources that do exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I fail to understand is why a headline-making scam artist, one who, according to the Times of London, bilked people out of a great deal of money, and appears to have escaped lawsuits by absconding to Morocco, why he should be able to expunge his Wikipedia page? This was not a one-off, it appears to have been a career length scam.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that while Shortt now asks for privacy, he sought publicity back when he was running the scam [[36]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am changing my vote - his notoeriety has been covered by main stream press. The Times article is only one of several with the coverage beyond passing. He may not be notable as author or martial artist (as per my original vote) but he has made an impact. The article does need work but he is a notable scam artist.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That, I accept, and would be willing to change my vote as well, if someone would be willing to improve the article with those sources.Legitimus (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Now that an SPA has weigned in, and SPA with only a handful of previous edits, one on the talk page of User:Legitimus, I wonder whether we should revisit the entire group of articles Legitimus boasts of "rounding-up" and deleting in his comment above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2016 (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 07:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ERA Sports Thessaloniki[edit]

ERA Sports Thessaloniki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY, WP:UNSOURCED -- This is a non-notable, unsourced article. Billy Liakopoulos & Νικόλας Παπαποστόλου keep reverting, but do not provide an edit summary or any sources. 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 17:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 17:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing suggesting this can be a particularly independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable defunct local radio station with no assertion as to notability and no sources at all. There's also very little information in the article itself beyond the date of closure, nothing about the station itself, popular shows, presenters, cultural impact etc - not really enough for a stub even if notability and verifiability weren't an issue. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:26, 1 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig D. Forrest[edit]

Craig D. Forrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the references given here are problematic. The first fails verification; the second is to a college website that does not mention the subject; the third is a dead link; the fourth is to the subject's personal website; the fifth is to IMDb which is not an independent source of information; the sixth is a list of Aegis Award winners, which is not a notable award; the seventh is to a list of Accolade Competition award winners, and the Accolade Competition has already been deleted as a non-notable awards mill; the last reference is to another IMDb piece mentioning his family and interests in hockey. The Aurora Awards are currently under consideration for deletion. There is no citation to the claim of being a member of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. I was not able to find any non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Having received a number of non-notable awards does not confer notability, and the paucity of significant coverage elsewhere does not help either. If he were notable, it shouldn't be so difficult to prove it. So far, this article's citations fail to make the case. "News" and "newspapers" searches get zero hits; Google Books show that he published one book on digital film making, but that is not an independent source. Google scholar likewise turns up nothing. I am more notable than this person. KDS4444 (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now for this one since it's still questionable for needed better improvements, everything else listed, information and IMDb, is all still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist, would prefer more substantial comments regarding the article. Nakon 02:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Orphan BLP, written mainly by connected contributors including the subject. Almost entirely original research / primary sources. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Awards don't appear to be notable. -- IamNotU (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Eclipse[edit]

Red Eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks from reliable, independent sources. (?) Dearth of dedicated coverage apart from announcements in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. (No reviews?) List of major Creative Commons licensed works#Red Eclipse could work as a redirect target, but that list would be better off only listing independently notable games anyway. czar 02:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the past when this page has come up for deletion, it has been determined that Joystiq, PC Gamer, and Engadget have all been reliable independent sources. Even if some are announcements, each author gives their own personal opinion of the game which is considered to be a "review". While some of the content of the article may not meet the criteria for verifiability, that does not warrant a deletion of the entire article, but rather a clean-up with a request for more sources. Also, to remove the "Indie Game Reviewer" review and references you will need to make a case for it not being a reliable independent source (which is a different topic to it being notable itself as has been noted in past deletion discussions). Red Eclipse has also been used publicly by Microsoft Research in their IllumiRoom project (the article itself has a screenshot with Red Eclipse in it and could be expanded to list the open source projects they used to accomplish the task). I'm not a stranger to this debate. Angeles (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're sort of correct. Yes, a request for cleanup and more sources is reasonable, but that's what you're getting because that's what AFD is, and if more sources can't be found, then it'll be deleted. It's probably just a little more "do or die" than you'd prefer. Also, while its hard to say for sure, as I'm having a hard time locating these deletion discussions of the past, but if said discussion hinged on the type of sources you've presented below...I'm not sure how much stock I'd put into those discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While all these may not meet the criteria, there is certainly more than enough information out there about the project:

: This is the very article I found that led me to Red Eclipse. Can someone please explain to me how it does not fit the bill as a reliable source? I typed in "Open Source FPS" some years back and this came up. When I went to check up on each of the games, they all existed and were exactly as reported in that article. Is About.com some sort of fishy source? Why? Bottom line for me - if the topic is open source FPS games, this is useful information to me. ShaneCRoach (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Please see our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines, especially on disclosure, considering that you claim to be the person who is also listed as the lead developer. (2) No, three announcements do not make a product notable. Coverage and external interest needs to be sustained, which is why games usually need several reviews or exceptional coverage otherwise. (3) Indie Game Reviewer was discussed. (4) I see no reliable coverage—apart from the already accounted Joystiq—worth noting in the links above. czar 04:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I will first disclose that I have contributed to the wiki of Red Eclipse . First of all, I don't think almost anyone other than Angeles and Shirepirate have a real COI, me included; their involvement is very minor, and extends to little beyond "we play this and have posted on the forum now and then". Given the open-source nature of the project, this is much more frequent than the proprietary games you are most familiar with.
Secondly, I am surprised you shot down sources as prominent as Joystiq and RPS. I actually know a bit about your background, and how your site arose in during Gamergate, representing the Gamergate side perhaps a little more than the other one. I wouldn't be surprised if you have a strong hate bone for RPS and how they intentionally discard objective criticism. Yes, I read that into you, but if you have such a bias, state it upfront. It's alright, I'm not a fan of RPS either but I can recognise their prominence warrants notability (I'm also not anti-GG, but I wouldn't call myself pro-GG either).
I can however say that it is much more prominent coverage than dozens of other open source games, and even some proprietary ones. Red Eclipse has been known to be included in some German print magazines as well, on the disc. I believe the coverage and its association with IllumiRoom (which caused quite a buzz at the time) are relevant enough to warrant notability status. Within the niche more specifically, Red Eclipse and the Cube engine are absolutely notable. I am therefore led to ask (particularly in light of Angeles's claim of harassment) what led you to target this project specifically, as I find the behaviour unjust and overly demanding, particularly relative to the rest of WP; I say that as a Wikipedian myself.
Lastly, I think trying to 'win' this discussion by claiming COI and canvassing on everyone won't get you anywhere. Basically everyone here is involved in some way or another. Wikipedia is pretty poor as a platform for discovering ongoing conversations like this, particularly with several AfD conversations ongoing for weeks at a time. You have accepted that we come from a position that has a non-neutral POV, as have we; I request that you do the same, because I very keenly believe that you do, particularly in your evaluation of the sources (which would otherwise give this page a pass). Your insistence upon this topic is an indicator of your greater bias, towards both these sources (you do run OpenCritic afterall) and Red Eclipse (why do you so badly want to delete this page? I believe it's greater than the rules of Wikipedia). My issue is that you attribute this to everyone else and seek to strike down their speech that way, but it is apparently a non-issue for yourself. This matter needs to be addressed. Either we greatly diminish the importance of COI here (because let's face it, that's how this discussion is happening in practice, and there's a WP policy that touches all that if I recall correctly) or you admit your own lack of NPOV. It had to be said. Please don't take the above as a personal attack, it is not meant to be; I only mentioned what is relevant to the discussion at hand.--Yannis A. ✆|☑ 11:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, just wanted to say that Czar (and any other users on this page) are in no way related to OpenCritic? Found this page on Google today and wanted to make it clear. There are only 4 of us on the OpenCritic team and I (CEO) believe I'm the only one on Wikipedia. MattEnth (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well either I have done my duty in identifying myself already by supplying this information on Wikipedia, or you just violated WP:OUTING; so I suggest you choose which one you're going to go with there. My user page was a little out of date showing the former name of the project ("Blood Frontier"), and that has now been fixed, but my real name is enough to identify me as the Lead Developer. WP:COI and WP:NPOV take regard to the content of a page, of which I have not contributed anything but fact checks, grammar, and spelling fixes, and thus falls outside the scope of these policies (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blood_Frontier). I'm also allowed to follow normal procedures when discussing the deletion of the page. Thanks for verifying IGR's status, I agree with the decision they made there and those references should be removed. With regard to the custom Google search, did you put quotes around the name ("Red Eclipse") or did you only do a cursory search? WP:SCNR provides some insight into how questionable the "significant coverage" debate is (though note this is only an essay), because it is only in your opinion so far that the coverage is not significant despite having 10 years of history and at least three reputable sources as well as commercial applications. Angeles (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come on—you put a name on your user page, identify with other developer roles, but don't mention your connection to this game at all in your response and then call it outing? SCNR has no policy weight at Articles for Deletion—significant coverage is literally part of the notability guideline. For the rest, I believe what I've already said should be sufficient. czar 07:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm under no requirement to include that information in all my messages when it is already available on Wikipedia, you identified me well enough after all when you added this unnecessary remark on my Talk page, despite the information already being available to you (See WP:WikiBullying and WP:AVOIDABUSE). I'm assuming you're not going to listen to reason, but you should read WP:Overzealous_deletion and more specifically WP:INVALID and WP:TE (everybody has bias. Few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate), assuming you aren't just on some crusade to win. You've been in a rush to remove the content of this article from the start. I've made it clear who I am and my case regarding the available sources too, so I won't be responding to any more argumentative behaviour. Angeles (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you the same polite message I regularly send any number of editors with potential conflicts of interest. Never has a response been as hostile. Heed your own advice. czar 17:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources listed, I don't know if I'd consider any of them as a WP:RS. Even the GameSpot one - while their staff is reliable, the one listed above is just a user-blog that would fail WP:USERG. The Joystiq one is a reliable source...but its debatable if its significant coverage - its a pretty brief article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the three announcements discussed. czar 22:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that article isn't a proper review and can't be used. Angeles (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well, I interpret the notability guidelines for reliability & significant coverage that way that the Joystiq source and even the RPS source are sufficient. About "significant coverage" in the RPS ref, while short, the article was specifically about Red eclipse, not only a mentioning as part of an other topic's article, where normally "significant coverage" applies. So, I consider it covered by reliable secondary sources. Also, what is with this MS Research project? no sources findable? Shaddim (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While IllumiRoom received a lot of coverage, there wasn't much mention of the games they used to do this. Here are some links which all show Red Eclipse in the videos and screenshots [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] and this video features the game extensively with credit given at the end as well as this longer one. This appeared in notable publications all over the world, but I am not sure if that notability really extends to Red Eclipse. Angeles (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The significant coverage is supposed to be centered around the subject (Red Eclipse) not tanentially related things (Illumiroom), so that sourcing really wouldn't help in the terms of the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the situation is that easily answerable: while the paper is clearly not about Red Eclipse (or SupertuxKart), the researchers selected this game as example for an open source shooter. I think this has weight, Red Eclipse was used for the majority of analysis and presentations, so is core part of that paper. IllumiRoom_CHI2013 by Microsoft Research "The majority of the illusions were paired with an open-source first-person shooter (Red Eclipse). This created a rich, interactive experience, enabled by access to source code. The Snow illusion was paired with a racing game with a snow level (SuperTuxKart 3), triggered with controller input." Together with the reliable secondary sources Joystiq and RPS it seems for me above the notability threshold. Shaddim (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a longer review from a reliable (but in German) secondary source: Red Eclipse for Windows "Die CHIP Redaktion sagt: "Red Eclipse" ist ein kostenloser Open-Source-Ego-Shooter, der durch viele Maps und eine rasante Spielmechanik punktet." on Chip.de Shaddim (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a review for the game under the previous (?) "Blood frontier" name on the Hungarian Gamestar Blood Frontier: ingyenesen letölthető! (hint to Angeles: this name change / predecesor project should be mentioned in the article's develeopment/history section) Shaddim (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I don't have a lot of deep commentary to add here. I have considered open source gaming, and specifically open source FPS gaming, as a topic of personal interest for going on five years now, and Red Eclipse seems to me to be clearly quite notable in that admittedly niche area of interest. ShaneCRoach (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that ShaneCRoach (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Confirmed, this user is a member of the Red Eclipse community who forgot to mention their involvement as requested. Angeles (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::: I didn't "forget to mention" it. I find the meta discussion about who found out about this topic and from where entirely off topic and consciously chose not to be dragged into it. Either the sources exist or they do not. There are supposedly hard copy mentions of this game. If they exist, hand over the body. Otherwise let's turn the article into a redirect to Cube 2, edit the Cube 2 entry appropriately, and move on. ShaneCRoach (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

No offense, but it doesn't matter whether or not whether or not you find it to be "off-topic" - its not an opinion-based matter. The Wikipedia guidelines say you're supposed to disclose any connections to the subject, or whether or not you created the article, in these discussions. Even beyond that though, as is, you're stance will also likely be discarded anyways, as it doesn't seem to amount to anything more than a baseless WP:ITSIMPORTANT statement, which isn't valid. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:::::I stated my connection to the topic. I am interested in open source FPS games, of which there are a scant handful in existence at all. I also stated that if some of these hard copy references were produced, that would solve the issue of sourcing. I'm fine with my vote not counting as the issue is, as you say, more a matter of demonstrable fact than of voting. Either the sources exist or they do not. What I object to is being personally dragged into a contest of wills between the Wikipedia admins on the one hand and the Red Eclipse admins on the other. I am not here as an advocate for either, but as someone who has an interest in Open Source FPS games. Would that anyone involved in this topic actually had the best interests of the topic itself at heart. Odd that no one wants to talk about possibly pointing the reference to Cube 2. No... no the entire "discussion" of this "topic" hinges on personal allegations of some sort of untoward personal involvement with Red Eclipse. I've been a member of their forums for a grand total of two weeks I think. I actually tend to spend most of my time there dealing with issues specific to its interaction with Blender.... The idea that I have some sort of untoward tie that I have failed to report is specious. What, does Wikipedia have a ban on discussing anything to do with Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia? People will talk. That is not "canvassing". ShaneCRoach (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC) :::::Asking myself why I care one way or the other what happens to this article, I stumbled across the list of "open-source shooter" video games here on Wikipedia. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open-source_shooter_video_games Listed among them is Unreal Engine. Yes, Unreal Engine is "open source", but its license is a trap. It has become more and more common. It's free for you to use as long as you do not do anything financially useful with it. Then, suddenly, it is no longer "free". My interest is complete open source and cooperative development of resources, and of all the places to find information about that specific topic under attack, Wikipedia is perhaps the most shocking. One of the main draws to Red Eclipse for me during my research was its parkour system. Where exactly am I supposed to find out about this information if people are systematically getting rid of information about open source shooters on Wikipedia? What is the driving motive behind deleting content useful for researching specific topics? I just don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaneCRoach (talk • contribs) 15:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A crusade started out of a misguided attempt to save the page from someone I assumed to be hostile in bad faith, and the results of that is my responsibility. It is clear that we as a project and as a community still have a lot of room to grow, and I apologise for the behaviour that has been exhibited both here and off-wiki. Angeles (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Keep This is a case of WP:Overzealous_deletion, the article is well written and the subject is more obscure than any of the labels being applied by others, which is common for open source video games. It should be noted that "Red Eclipse" is a re-branding of "Blood Frontier", and the entire project dates back to 2005 with mentions on many gaming sites and in hard copy gaming magazines all over the world (the problem is, these aren't available online and can't be verified). The project created the AI that is now available in Cube_2:_Sauerbraten and has been a major player in driving the development of the Cube family of engines/games. It was also an instrumental part of the IllumiRoom demonstrations, which seems like a very notable accomplishment. It is also available in all major Linux distributions and gaming distribution channels (except Steam). Angeles (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Angeles (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Has consensus been reached? Jfault (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user has a close involvement with the subject of the article being discussed. Angeles (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only sources are re-posts about an announcement and wiki articles. Additionally, all but one keep votes here are people canvassed by the lead developer. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 06:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's not enough third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG. There's a couple usable sources in all of this, but they're just short articles that are brief product announcements, not significant coverage. A vast majority of the sources cited just don't meet WP:RS - they're obscure blogs and WP:USERG-violating material. It's a clear case of WP:BOMBARD with the sources and WP:SPA with all these bogus !votes. (I've seen "overzealous deletion" cited more in this discussion in the last 48 hours than in my entire 7 years on Wikipedia - that's about as clear cut as it gets when it comes to misguided collaboration off-wiki.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's certainly been a lot of interesting back and forth over this, I think it's safe to say several parties have not handled themselves in the best way they could have. While responses from the game's community were more heated than they should have been it's hard to deny that it is a testament to the game's relevance as an open source software, though that is not what this discussion is supposed to determine. As mentioned above in my keep vote, I've played this game for a few years now and certainly have a conflict of interest over seeing the article deleted, 'twould be sad indeed. Though I am not one of the game's creators I've made some small contributions to it's development and still enjoy playing it to this day.

While the initial interested party czar and a couple others here have made some good points about a lack of reliable sources, I still see this as something that can be easily remedied by citing them appropriately. The game does have significant media coverage, and while granted this may be interpreted subjectively by each party I think several of the articles do meet the bare minimum standard for notability by Wikipedia's own guidelines. It would be a shame to just let the discussion die while some statements of dubious veracity have been said here on this page about the game's lack of notability. So let's take a look at these specifically:

In the above link we see what I assume to be either a professional blogger for the site that took enough interest to write an article about it not during or even near a release time (and several years after the game's initial release, in fact), likely because of the lack of quality open source games available on that platform. They took the time to do their own original research, documented it and shared their opinion. Insignificant as it may be this is a notable review and qualifies as media coverage by Wikipedia's standards.

In this link we see one of the site's official team take the time to review the game after a good playthrough. overall opinions were shared, rating was applied, positives and negatives were outlined, and even some original screenshots were added (broken links now!). Just because egmr isn't a top review site does not mitigate the importance of notable reviews and valid media coverage. Open source games are doomed to lurk in the shadows forever, after all!

This is an example of (from what i can tell) a paid blogger who wrote an article for makeuseof about the game. It contains all the elements of a valid review and was written by (as per definition) a paid professional. If someone knew nothing about Red Eclipse and happened upon this review, it is safe to say they would have a clear idea or not by the time they had finished reading it if they wanted to try the game for themselves.

Another example of a paid blogger that did their research. While brief, the review is an accurate and original description of the game and is even featured on a well known site. It was written approximately a month after the game left it's old Blood Frontier branding and adopted the name Red Eclipse, but does not contain any sign of a typical release announcement. It is able to stand on it's own quality and validity without needing to divert users to the Red Eclipse site to find out more.

There are others, but are these examples not enough? It is important to remember the obscurity of open source titles when deciding on the validity of a source for it. You need to look in-depth at the content and not simply dismiss it when you've never heard of it. Whether this is seen as simply biased badgering to prevent the page from being deleted or not, I hope it is constructive to further healthy discussion. Whatever the outcome of the final consensus at least a fair argument has been made for both sides. Shirepirate (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The makeuseof link is not written by a professional afaik (senior at UT?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.66.95 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of strong independent sources and coverage. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is broad coverage with several (also international) reliable, independent secondary sources (C't, Der Standard, Gamestar.hu Chip.de, Phoronix, Joystiq, RPS etc). Additionally, the game was significant part of a scientific publication, which has weight. cheers Shaddim (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)1[reply]
  • Delete at best and wait for better if ever, as although the article is sourced and informative, I would've then considered accepting, but since it is still questionable, we can wait for assuringly better. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the article is "informative and sourced", please specify what is still questionable, as the article's references were significantly improved since the start of the discussion. The article has a broad coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources now, significant coverage is shown. cheers Shaddim (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as mentioned before, most everything presented are extremely brief product announcements or tangentially related to the subject. I'm not familiar with these foreign language sources, so it's hard to tell whether or not they'd be considered reliable, but regardless, I'm not sure how helpful "An extremely short review in German done so far back that the game was named something else" is going to be regardless... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Extremely brief product announcements or tangentially related to the subject." is not true anymore. I hope we an agree on "broad coverage", which should have also weigth. (+being a non-tangential part of a product and scientific publication) About the "depth" while some of these secondary sources are indeed brief, some are deeper reviews, and additionally over several years, languages etc. Overall, this should be enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. In detail, fullfilled aspects without a doubt: verifiablity, "Reliable secondary sources", "Independent of the subject/not affiliated" (while here was some heated misfocussed discussion, the found sources are clearly independend). The discussion currently revolves only around "Significant coverage", therefore here word by word from Wikipedia:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources ([Check]) that are independent of the subject ([Check]), it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." About "directly and in detail": The secondary reviews and even announcements addressed RE directly and as main topic. The only question remains what is "in detail". Here I would argue when "in detail" means "decribing the article's object" satisfying are Phoronix, Gamestar Chip, Der Standard, even PC Gamer is more than an anouncement. Overall, the current width of sources makes the article to one of the better sourced gaming articles in WP, it is a good/acceptable quality article for a more notable game than many other unchallenged articles. I have the fear we would treat the game and article not fair by applying policies needlessly stricter than other articles I have seen in the gaming domain, for which I see no apparant reason. While the discussion went out of control at times, this should not influence the outcome of the deletion request. Way around, I can understand the communities frustration that a game which is mentioned as one of the 5 top OSS shooters, which exists for more than a decade, has still active development and an active community (we saw their envolvement here) just becomes unnotable after 5 years of article existence, is a confusing change and let new editors understandable doubt the reasonablity of our policies. And this is not their problem but a WP problem. So, lets give them some slack and let this article live, they showed good will and their intent to work constructive on the article. cheers Shaddim (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you're a bit hung up on using the term "product announcement". The emphasis isn't so much the "announcement", it's on the "short" part. In addition to these being sources on the more obscure side - I spot checked a few, and they're typically about 6-7 short sentences long - They're very brief and light on content, and its difficult to write an article around that. Proponents of the article talk about all the content present, but a large portion of the article goes unsourced, and should technically be removed. Entire sections even. If we removed all of the unsourced content, we'd likely be left with a little stub of an article. And these tiny sources that say very little wouldn't go very far in improving that. (Please note what I'm saying is based off the very concept that you're citing above - being able to write about the subject in detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Entire sections going unsourced = writing using original research. The article's current state is a massive violation of this.)
  • The shoddy quality of other questions has no bearing on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. If you feel rules are not being applied fairly, then you are welcome to help by nominating some of these other poor other for deletion to even things out.
  • In the same vein, it's not necessarily that the subject "fell out of notability after 5 years", its just that no one caught it until now. Think of it this way: Lets say someone created a hoax article in 2010, and it didn't get caught until today? Did Wikipedia have a pro-hoax article stance in 2013? Do we keep the hoax because no one raised any issues with it the last 6 years? Do we keep it because there's worse hoaxes out there? No, of course not - now that we've noticed it, and know that Wikipedia doesn't allow hoaxes, we deleted it. Same kind of thing here, its just that its about our notability criteria instead. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on the assertion "shoddy": Red Eclipse has not a shoddy article, better than many other articles, what makes this deletion request absurd & dangerous as the consequence would be that we have to delete many, many more. Which I think would be not in the interest of WP. Such extrem intepretations of policies were not applied up to now in game articles. Way around, it seems that some editors try to establish a new practice which has no consensus and is not backed by previous practices & precedent. Which seems to be confirmed by your recommendation of "by nominating some of these other poor other for deletion to even things out.". No, the solution is not "just in the average", but proper justice per instance, like in Red Eclipse's case. "6-7 sentences" is not short, also it is not clearly defined what is short. Clearly, there is more and broader reception available than the shortest form of mentioning ("announcement") which should be enough (especially if we acknowledge the amount of). I can argue, according to WP:notability ("does not need to be the main topic of the source material."), that the threshold is reached also for the IllumiRoom source as Red Eclipse was non-tangible aspect of this paper, but primary test object. And if we take the broader reception into account, inclusion into official linux distro repos & digital distributions platforms, we are again above the notability threshold. We have a broad and for a long time ongoing notable reception of Red Eclipse. Shaddim (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"but a large portion of the article goes unsourced, and should technically be removed. Entire sections even. If we removed all of the unsourced content, we'd likely be left with a little stub of an article. And these tiny sources that say very little wouldn't go very far in improving that." This is not true as the sourcing would be vary easy as the requirements for sources for non-controversial facts are lower than for establishing notability. Primary sources would be OK, but also most can be easily mapped to the ~10 good reliable, secondary sources. No, Red Eclipse is and can be further well sourced. Shaddim (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then, because to me it looks a lot more like a small collection of very short sources of a fringe-at-best quality. You're free to your interpretation of course, but I think there's a reason why we keep seeing the "Delete" !votes roll in despite your lengthy defense of the article... Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort, but it seems the original conclusion by the OP is taken over by the new participants instead of taking a in detail look with the new sources. I'm also not sure of the negative impact of the (non-helpful but understandable) community involvement, which should have no impact. In general I think this would be a weakly founded decision for delete with potentially long reaching negative impact. For sure the Red Eclipse community would take that badly, for understandable reasons. In the end, we have flexibility to improve WP, and deletion of content for corner-case formal reasons is seldom an improvement. Shaddim (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments keep on referring to a "dangerous" precedent from the deletion of this article, as other articles of similar quality and references would be eligible for deletion. If it's a slippery slope you're worried about, don't be, as I can say as a neutral participant in this discussion that the project would gladly see every article with unsatisfactory sourcing and notability be deleted. Unfortunately, they often do fly under the radar. Also, really, part of what makes Wikipedia so great is that it's built upon encyclopedic content and it doesn't have the obligation to reserve articles on the basis of what a subject matter's supporters may think. It seems like you may have a fundamental misunderstanding about our intentions and objectives here. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 10:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the easyness you throw around the buzz word "encyclopedic" let me assume that you didn't understood the ambiguity, fragility and complexity associated with this term and the associated notability. Which we were barely able to approximate into too many policy page. If you have not read and heard up to now, this essay, describes why notability as entry threshold for content is the weakest & most insignificant, while most controversial, of our policies. Wasting too many authors' time since the beginning. Shaddim (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Encyclopedic" isn't a buzzword when you're dealing with an online encyclopedia- it's a principle. Furthermore, that essay, (which only is an essay afterall), concerns the differences in length and stylization, not notability, which indicates that you didn't actually read it, but Googled key words you hoped to throw in my face. And, do you not have a defense for the actual notability of this topic, aside from there being other articles with unsatisfactory references that might have fans that will be offended? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not an principle but an ideal or vision ...which we try to approximate desperately by vague and long winded policies. There is nothing natural or principle about "encyclopedic", beside the compromise we create and agree on to follow. Your other remark is hilarious as I brought up multiple sources and argumentations very specific to this article. Shaddim (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:GNG failure. SSTflyer 07:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NGAME. Blogs, wikis and product announcements just are not sufficient.

    The canvassing and meat puppetry by someone saying they are the developer also leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Anyone who thinks they need to canvass for support for keep votes, even worse off-wiki canvassing, rather than simply provide the sources necessary to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, seems to me to be trying to get free advertising and recognition out of Wikipedia when they can not get coverage in their own industry. Utterly shameful. JbhTalk 11:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep. There is broad secondary reliable and independent reception available: Phoronix, Gamestar Chip, Der Standard, PC Gamer, which is clearly "more than a trivial mention", which is the policy requirement. And there is a product, IllumiRoom, with a peer-reviewed publication, which was developed under use of Red Eclipse, specifically referring to its properties. Comment the community controversy should not at all influence the outcome of this deletion request. Vice versa, it should be seen with more modesty by WP authors and establishment as another indication to critical inspect our own procedures and policies as more and more our procedures getting more and more decoupled from out-side world needs and understanding. Way around, that the article topic's community came here and tried hard to understand our opaque and byzantine policies and procedures and tried to address the raised remarks should be praised. And that a big and for 10 years ongoing community exist should be seen as serious sign that the original deletion request was shortsighted and inflexible regarding the notability, interpreting a weakly worded single policy excessively literal and bureaucratic, instead applying the vision and spirit of WP as growing, comprehensive compendium of human knowledge from all domains. Shaddim (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Shaddim (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

  • Comment - Please refrain from repeating !votes. I can see what you would like to do is have a consensus to ignore the rules. I don't agree with that in this circumstance as I feel the topic is not encyclopaedic. - Pmedema (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if I did wrong with re-voting, this is the first time I participate in a "relisted" deletion request, which I understood wrongly, it seems, as reset. About your second point, I don't urge for an "ignore all rules", I urge for a reasonable, calm rule interpretation based on fact (not being burdened by prejudice and accusations like "Utterly shameful."). As I showed, the article is very well inside the defined "notability criteria" with broad, reliable secondary reception. The voiced "stomach feelings" brought up here by some, are no substantial counter arguments against the sources available, addressing the raised points for keeping the article. Shaddim (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you keep saying that, by your interpretation, it meets the GNG; however, virtually no experienced editors agree with that assertion. The sourcing is just way too weak. Appealing to "the decline of Wikipedia" or "well its got a really strong fanbase" doesn't play any role in these discussions either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Phoronix reference is about Blood Frontier. Gamestar.hu is not a reliable source. Chip.de is a promotional download area. Derstandard.at an unknown website that has a passing mention that shows no notability and your PC Gamer link goes to the same Chip.de article! Your "Clearly not trivial mention" is trying to play a WP:GAME. I'm not too sure about the byzantine policies and procedures that is mentioned but if you have been involved with the ideology of Wikipedia, you will note that the core of how things work is through consensus. Let me help you with letting this run it's course... Please don't feel that you WP:OWN this article. - Pmedema (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your extensive (/s) research at this topic and for this discussion.... you even failed to find the PC Gamer ref, which is the first source in the topic's page. Or the failing to identify that the Der Standard is one of the major newspaper of Austria, clearly reliable. Your remark about Blood Frontier also misses that Blood frontier is the direct predecessor and RE the direct successor. About Gamestar.hu... what you are talking about? Did you even took one second time to check what you said? "GameStar (DE, HU, CZ, IT, CN)" is mentioned as reliable, also the HU version. And I unlikely "own" the article, as I was before this misguided deletion request not a major author of the article. So, wrong on all fronts. Can we please stay on topic? PS: about Byzantine, see here Shaddim (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to work on your civility. You are getting way out of line with these personal attacks. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only one, I get here attacked with unbased accusations of all kind, I didn't started this, I jsut defend. :( Shaddim (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shaddim, to be fair, you are the one who linked to the wrong article above when trying to link to the PC Gamer article, in your comments above. That's what he was referring to. (It confused me at one point as well.) Regardless, the PC Gamer article is again, much more of a "short listicle entry" than "significant coverage". Not a strong example. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this was obviously a minor mistake from my side and no reason for a blown up complaint or a proper reason for a dismissal of the source. The other complain aspects were similarly weak researched counter arguments... *sigh*. While I agree many of that sources are not strong examples (they are short), I argue, many of them satisfy the notability criteria alone as many of them are not "a trivial mention" but own articles for this topic alone. And, let alone the broadness of reliable source coverage we have for this topic (continous international reception for years), which constitutes notability. Shaddim (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel sorry for the closer who has to read this book now Shirepirate (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2016 (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. A clear consensus to delete all per WP: NOTDIRECTORY. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TMT Bus routes[edit]

TMT Bus routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP: NOTDIRECTORY, WP: NOTGUIDE and consensus at similar Afd of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus lines in Kolkata. Also enlisting following similar articles in this same Afd.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:29, 24 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feroz Khan (born 1989)[edit]

Feroz Khan (born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. also the information about the film produced Lakeer ka Fakeer it shows the the producer in IMDB as Zubair Khan link [45] please add sources Fitindia (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is the brother of Zubair Khan and the co-producer of Lakeer ka Fakeer film. Please check this link [46] (including 9 news articles) for offline media references. Thanks TSFan Club (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would prefer some more substantial comments before closure. Nakon 02:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claims to notability are having been in a reality TV show, being co-producer of a non-notable film, and winning a non-notable online talent contest for a song performance. Doesn't come close to anything in WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. There is some coverage in the "HT City" edition for his home town, which is a reliable source, but it's in a local context. There would need to be a wider range of sources, an indication of a geographically broader notability, and frankly, some more notable achievements. The sources have him starring in a Bollywood film, but it doesn't seem to have been released. Has some potential if he keeps working at it, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. -- IamNotU (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janette Kim[edit]

Janette Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:PROF for a biography of a living person. Sources are too closely associated to her, and there is no evidence of significant coverage in other sources. Delta13C (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any independent citations to the subject's work. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as the current contents suggest nothing applicably better for notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:26, 24 May 2016 (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. Noting that many of the arguments are rather weak. However, there is, I think, sufficient consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murshed Ahmed[edit]

Murshed Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Most of references don't even mention "Murshed Ahmed". Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtsRescuer: Would you elaborate on how you feel the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion? --Worldbruce (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my dear• ArtsRescuer 16:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete• ArtsRescuer 16:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, subject does not yet appear to be the recipient of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @ArtsRescuer: I reverted your last edit as it seemed like accidental deletion. I see that you have !voted both keep and delete. You can simply strike off the one (or both !votes) you don't want, but don't delete content. For striking you can do <s>text</s> --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches have found nothing better and the current article is simply not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. ~ Moheen (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, it is a glorified CV! The only contributor Rossi101 has strong affinity towards architects from Sylhet. Editor's contribution pattern makes me think that Ahmed is editor himself (potential Auto bio) or close acquaintance of editor (potential COI). I hope this is not the case; Rossi101 is a long standing good editor. --nafSadh did say 16:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination __Kayser Ahmad (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ihar Dolbik[edit]

Ihar Dolbik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 14:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the article's creator. I will copy what I wrote in advance of this on the article's talk page so you understand what is happening here. This was directed at the nominator and his agenda:
Lets it be clear, you have expressed you want to discount ALL Masters athletes from WP:NSPORT here with the completely unrealistic expectation that all of them must achieve WP:GNG or the category should be eliminated. The removal of that point of the criteria occurred April 16, 2016 or you would not be able to say it failed NSPORT and we are involved in a debate about that point now. You are using this article as your test case vs my sample test cases demonstrating these athletes do get sufficient coverage to meet GNG. If you successfully shoot this down, you will open the door to deleting hundreds of articles about Masters athletics. You are challenging a Belarussian athlete for his press coverage being routine. I will admit, getting Belarussian sources is difficult considering most of it is written in Cyrillic script that does not google translate well. You are taking a very broad version of WP:ROUTINE. If we were to eliminate all routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports etc, then we might as well eliminate NSPORT entirely or certainly a large chunk of it. Thousands of our stub articles only report a single result. Eliminating all those articles I would assume would be unrealistic, so you have not gone out on a limb to make such a claim. With 13 independent sources, this is far better sourced than that. This athlete is clearly one of the best in the world at what he does. His club president is quoted in an English language magazine saying that about him. He has two World Championships, and three additional World Championship level medals. He also has two European Championships and two additional silver medals at the Continental Championship level. Those accomplishments over a 3 year timespan have been reported by multiple international sources. Several of these are lists, but they are lists of Champions, not routine sports scores. A routine score would list the winner of one game out of a season of 162 games for example. Marathoners might only get one, two attempts a year. By the nature of what he does, he might only get a few results to report a year. Would you dare to challenge an Open Division or even Junior Division level athlete with similar accomplishments? You know you would be shut down by a snowball if any rational wikipedians were watching. I am removing the proposed deletion template, which is only supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletions. This clearly is controversy. Trackinfo (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No actually I don't want them all deleted. What I said is I don't believe they belong on the NSPORTS list and should rely solely on WP:GNG. If you can prove they meet GNG then great. I think you have a very very poor understanding of what constitutes in depth coverage as spelled out in the various notability guidelines. A list is not in any way possible to establish notability. If you don't agree with me go ahead and ask on one of the notability talk pages, you will find out very fast. Routine coverage is anything that will happen automatically, ie, a list of results for a championship. I think you completely misunderstand what NSPORT is. NSPORT is not a way around GNG. NSPORT is guidance on when an athlete is 99.9999% likely to meet GNG. So yes, you do need to show that the majority of masters athletes would meet GNG if you want them to be on the NSPORTs list otherwise they need to go straight to GNG to prove they are notabable. If an athlete with the amount of accomplishments this one has can't seem to get the news coverage to pass GNG then what hope do the one off winners. You don't get articles based on how good you are in a given sport, you get them based on how many in depth sources are written about you indicating that you are worthy of note. You could win 20 gold medals, but if no one wrote any news paper articles about you then you would not be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wish to place the weight of your argument on our ability to see and understand all of the Belarussian media. For this one guy, as I have been searching, I found evidence that suggests he is a business owner in Minsk. I can't even find the business name listed. You have very high expectations for what is available from that country to the outside, english speaking world. Trackinfo (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is however, how Wikipedia works. You need to provide sources to meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your obstinance has sent me wading into one of the most limited media environments in the world. Granted sports is not politics but it overflows into very little content being available on line, most of it not even using roman characters. From that search, we are now at 29 unique sources cataloging his accolades as a marathoner. While the majority are results that paint a picture of a prolific and highly successful masters marathoner, as would be expected for a World Champion--the whole point of this exercise. I have also found a quote from a competitor talking specifically about Ihar's strategy against him--not routine. And after finding blog comments showing his respect among the running community, I found a major Belarussian sports news site who conducted an athletic roundtable where he was invited to participate because of that respect. They published a three paragraph quote from this man, a translated version now included in the article. There is no way you can call this routine. Trackinfo (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you can call it running afoul of the relevant guidelines stating that quotes from a subject cannot be used to sustain the notability of the subject. Ravenswing 01:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will grant the quotes would not be necessary in the article as they are not substantial to his accomplishments, though we use similar quotes to explain an individual's perspective on events. I will probably remove them once this blows over. The point you fail to get from this is; he was invited to comment in this forum on this subject in the first place because of his athletic accomplishments. That is exclusively to establish notability for the hard headed. This is coverage of this individual by major sports media in his home country (in addition to them covering his results). Similarly, the quote from his competitor criticizing his race strategy wouldn't be very relevant except to prove it and he was relevant to the outcome of the race. Not routine coverage. By the way, a distance runner with an overly aggressive race strategy is a national hero here in the U.S., they've made two movies about Steve Prefontaine. It is a relevant subject that reveals this guy's personality as a competitor. And that quote was easier to come by because it did not originate in the very tight lipped media of Belarus. Trackinfo (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, you're starting to get a bit pointy here. Let me get this straight: you've added fluff quotes to the article you don't genuinely believe belong there solely in the hopes of swaying an AfD vote?

Quite aside from that, let's examine the tidal wave of sources you've tossed in. The first two I took a peek at back up your assertion that he is "Highly regarded as a leader in the running movement of Belarus." The sources you present to back that statement up are an Instagram photo and a forum post. These are followed by citation after citation which turn out to be mere one-sentence match results that are exactly the sort of routine athletic coverage WP:ROUTINE explicitly debars: "The second athlete to cover the distance was the Belarussian Ihar Dolbik." "9. Ihar, Dolbik, 02:41:04, Berlin, 2015-09-27" "4.Igor DOLBIK BLR 2:45:10." "Behind him finished from Minsk Igor Dolbik - 2: 40.25 and Igor Novitsky of the village Gorodishche - 2: 55.06." Further, a head-scratching number of these statements double up on the citations; may I ask why you felt the need to get multiple citations on Dolbik finishing fourth in a 2012 marathon, among several other examples?

Look, this is pretty basic: meeting the GNG means multiple reliable sources -- not blog posts or Instagram photos or forum posts -- which are about the subject and accord him "significant coverage." Find us some feature articles about Dolbik: not quoting him, not an article about a race in which he happened to come in sixth among many other runners. Several paragraphs ... about Dolbik. Without those ... I'm wishful of assuming good faith here, but I'm hard pressed to think of why we're being drowned in one-sentence casual mentions beyond that this is the hill you've chosen to die on, you haven't found any qualifying sources, and you're hoping we won't notice. Ravenswing 08:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm not seeing any qualifying sources either. As far as Trackinfo's arguments go, there's a fatal flaw: neither WP:V nor the GNG (nor, as to that, any Wikipedia policy or guideline) enshrine notability for people who claim to the "best in the world" at something. Notability hinges on the world noticing you, and if that means that the Khloe Kardashians of the world have notability that the Ihar Dolbiks lack, well, neither you nor DJ nor I get to decide what mass media finds important.

    Trackinfo, you make an all-too-common argument in that if excuses can be made for the "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources the GNG requires not being there -- "he's a marathoner," "there must be sources in the Belarusian media," "there are other articles like this" -- the provisions of WP:V and the GNG ought to be suspended in the subject's favor. Needless to say, this curious notion is likewise not found in any policy or guideline. The answer, I'm afraid, to there not being qualifying sources, is that an article cannot be sustained on the subject. Further, the only reasonable responses to your statement that if this article is deleted, similar articles on hundreds of Masters will follow, is (a) who wrote so many stubs on subjects knowing that they fell short of the GNG? and (b) well, yes, unless properly sourced, and the sooner the better. Ravenswing 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete at best as the current article could nearly be acceptable, but it's still questionable at best and I see nothing else convincing. Delete for now at best and wait for better if ever, SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources beyond routine reporting of results; nowhere near enough to establish individual notability per the GNG. Regarding the WP:OTHERSTUFF point on other similar articles, if those also have similar problems establishing notability and verifiability then they should be nominated too. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:29, 1 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vision 2016[edit]

Vision 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 11:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Ddcm8991, I'm not seeing near enough coverage to meet notability standards and warrant an article on this. GABHello! 00:53, 25 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khaja Arifuddin[edit]

Khaja Arifuddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Alternative search per WP:INDAFD: Khaja Arifuddin) --Sam Sailor Talk! 13:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject lacks significant coverage from reliable publications, and there is no indicator that this person would meet relevant guidelines for notability. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm not seeing anything particularly better for his own actual notable article thus delete until anything of that kind can be shown later. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kostas Novakis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kostas Novakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:Notability (music). Furthermore his works appear to be self-published as per (in Greek) http://www.protoporia.gr/author_info.php?authors_id=949560 , and all of the interwiki links have the same content and sources as the en one. Gts-tg (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for the same reason as last time [47]. Not a massive amount of outside coverage, but some fairly substantial material (the Eleftherotypia article now mirrored here: [48] and [49]). Note that the fact that his own works are self-published is quite irrelevant as a criterion here; what counts is the independence of the secondary coverage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG and WP:Notability (music) were ignored completely last time. Let's see why. The 2004 Eleftherotypia article is a reprint of an earlier 2003 press release in a music magazine (Jazz & Τζάζ, 4/2003) where the artist talks about himself, which is a source credibility fail as per the criterion number 1 exceptions at Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Of course, even if this source was counted as credible, it is far from being counted on its own as multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources. Also, with regards to the claim that "the fact his own works are self-published is quite irrelevant as a criterion" this is plain false and in direct contrast to criterion number 5 at Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles; Simply no part of WP:Notability (music) is satisfied by the person. Gts-tg (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What makes you think the Eleftherotypia piece is a "reprint", and what makes you think the piece in Jazz & Τζάζ is a mere press release? As far as I can see, the Eleftherotypia article is merely quoting a line from the Jazz & Τζάζ piece, and the latter (by Kostas Fokis) is likely to be a review, i.e. yet another piece of independent coverage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what makes you think that it isn't? The "some fairly substantial material" or the "likely to be a review and another piece of independent coverage" salad dressing? The source and date along with the author are quoted at the top and the quoted line is the original title of the text and within the text the person clearly talks about himself. Maybe if we try like really really hard and zen meditate we can make it out to likely be his PhD thesis? Or ignore that his works being self-published is a huge red flag? Gts-tg (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The Eleftherotypia piece was published in "IOS" ("ΙΟΣ"), a cultural/political supplement of the Eleftherotypia newspaper. The text itself clearly refers to "IOS" as its target platform ("ένα από τα αγαπημένα θέματα του «Ιού»", identifying "this column" as a sociopolitical rather than a music-related one), so it's unambiguously an original text written for that publication and not for the Jazz magazine. The thing you misidentify as a source line is a quotation, nothing else. As for "talking about himself", you are obviously misrepresenting the guideline. Its point is that publications are barred from consideration if they are in their entirety a mouthpiece of the subjects talking about themselves, such as press releases, not if they merely contain some interview material but are otherwise written independently, as is clearly the case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IOS was Eletherotypia's side magazine distributed along with the newspaper, so it's still Eleftherotypia reprinting that old source. But, oh sorry, I got sidetracked. What part of the above covers WP:GNG and WP:Notability (music) again? And still no reply about his works being self-published. Gts-tg (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't listening. No, it's not "reprinting that old source"; I just demonstrated to you that the text was written originally for IOS/Eleftherotypia. And I've already covered the thing about the self-published works. The criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles are sufficient, but not necessary criteria – while publication of an artist's work on high-profile labels could in itself constitute grounds for notability, their absence is of no concern as long as other criteria are met, in this case the criterion of independent journalistic coverage (at least Eleftherotypia/Ios and Dnevnik, probably that Jazz magazine; another one in Eleftherotypia here [50]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for demonstrating and finding probably that Jazz magazine and another tiny snippet mention in Eleftherotypia. It's just that I find that the above feedback you are providing is megaPOVd and ignores policy. Anyway I'm out, time for other people to share their thoughts. Gts-tg (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with nominator. I can't find enough independent coverage. ツStacey (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 21:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. All elaborate conversations aside the article fails WP:Notability (music) and is not qualified for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now as I'm not seeing anything particularly better of the needed solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist Nakon 02:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - insufficient coverage to establish notability. The sources given report "The First Macedonian CD is released in Greece", as a mostly political news event, which doesn't appear to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The information about the release could maybe be added to some article about Greek & Macedonian culture or politics, but doesn't warrant an article itself. It definitely doesn't warrant a dedicated biography article about Novakis, see WP:BIO1E. -- IamNotU (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - falls down on both the GNG and WP:NMUSIC as currently sourced. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:35, 1 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mansuria Kung Fu[edit]

Mansuria Kung Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable martial art. The article has no significant independent coverage or any claims of notability. Existing does not make it notable. Fails the GNG and the notability for martial arts styles at WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only non-primary source is lulu press which is no better. There is nothing to indicate that the providence is not made up (secret Ming bodyguards).Peter Rehse (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, I created this page as a french specialist of this art, and especially because Mansuria Kung Fu is a very popular Chinese martial arts in India and is becoming popular in France (e.g. M. Daffy became France vice-champion of Kung fu in his category [1]). In fact, I want to improve the page and add more informations on this art. Note that, the Grand Master R. Shekhar (9th Dan, died in 2014) appeared in the film Mugamoodi, and that the french Master (M. Derosiere) recently participated to a short film [2]. To be honest it is difficult to find english references on this martial arts, but I can share french references on Mansuria Kung Fu (journal articles are available). Please notice that references in Tamil are also available but I don't know Tamil so I am not able to find these references. Best regards. Buffy42 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show significant coverage of this martial art, not just passing mentions. I would also suggest you look at the notability criteria for martial arts styles at WP:MANOTE#Arts and styles. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your answer, in the next few days, I will work on the article and provide some references to justify the notability of this martial art. Best regards. Buffy42 (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best for now as there's nothing particularly suggestive of the applicable notability here. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has no references that show significant independent coverage nor is there anything to show the art is notable as defined at WP:MANOTE. There's an unsupported claim of it being a secret martial art since the Ming Dynasty, but it's hard to take that seriously. Of the two additional sources added by Buffy42, one doesn't even mention the art and the other is about a student finishing second in a junior weapons division at a French wushu tournament. That's a passing mention and does nothing to show this style is notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For information the second reference does mention the art (you can check the video if you understand french, the main actor is the french Master and international representative of the art[3]). Buffy42 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to rely on Google translations for French and makes the video useless to me. Having someone who practices a style be in a movie is, at most, a passing mention and does not make that style notable. I'll admit I also find it curious that this "Chinese" style seems to be practiced and headed by instructors in India and France. There don't seem to be any independent sources that actually talk about the art in any depth. Papaursa (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a chinese martial arts but more notable in India and France due to his modern history. Indeed, an Indian R. Shekhar came in Hong-Kong and learnt this chinese martial art under the supervision of another Master known as Kalai Achnony Lee. Then R. Shekhar came back in India where he became the last Grand Master of this style (he died in 2014). In India he was very popular and created the international federation of Mansuria Kung Fu. He trained more than 15000 black belt and 40000 students including stuntmen and actor of Bollywood (for example Jiiva) (and also some politicians). It is one of the most notable martial art in India and especially in Tamil Nadu. The french Master, M. Derosière came in India in the international school of the Grand Master where he learnt Mansuria Kung Fu under the direct supervision of the Grand Master. Master Derosière teaches Mansuria Kung Fu in France and has recently opened an international school in France. That's why this style is especially known in France and India. That's also why I would like to put this style on the english version of wikipedia (I would like to translate a part of the french article). Best. Buffy42 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If one teacher trained more than 15,000 black belts than we should be able to find lots of mentions of this art. That number is awfully high (and unsupported) as is the 40,000 students. Almost half of the students earn black belts? Secret martial arts going back hundreds of years that suddenly exist require proof and there's none. It sounds more like a self-created martial art and there's still no significant independent coverage of it.Mdtemp (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)>[reply]
Besides unsourced claims and a lack of significant independent coverage, there is also an obvious COI. Papaursa (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view. It's clearly difficult to find references on this arts. I imagine it is not sufficient for you, but you can easily find the existence of Mansuria (or Manchuria) Kung Fu on Facebook (there are pages about the international schools in India and France, and also about the Grand Master). Moreover, there is a national federation of Mansuria Kung Fu in France, and, to the best of my knowledge, an international federation in India. The lack of information is simply due to the fact that in India they mainly communicate orally.Buffy42 (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it exists is not enough to make it notable (see WP:ENN). I don't know the notability criteria at the French wikipedia, but if you're going to edit on the English one I recommend reading WP:N and WP:RS to better understand the notability criteria here. Papaursa (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant independent coverage here. claims of number of students are dubious.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to understand Tamil you can check the following video to discover the Grand Master Shekhar and the French Master[4]. Buffy42 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a BBC reportage available [5] Buffy42 (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that video is not available due to copyright issues. Papaursa (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weird I can watch it... Buffy42 (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unbox Therapy[edit]

Unbox Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. ubiquity (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I would agree I would also say that many other YouTubers with similar notability exist so far, and this article may improve over time WP:HASPOT. I would also recommend a name change to "Lewis Hilsenteger" to match other similar articles. Kinda Stolen (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Kinda Stolen, that is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:WAX. Read the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ThePlatypusofDoom, I agree that WP:WAX applies to the original Article marked here for deletion, but WP:CRYSTAL seems off topic for this discussion as it would normally apply to the Wikipedia article in question for deletion rather than this particular discussion on whether to keep the article. --Mle ii (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oops! Apologies. I still think that the article potentially falls under WP:HASPOT Kinda Stolen (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My searches reveal insufficient secondary, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do agree that as it stands this article doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Though with a quick search on the links pointed out above and a bit of a search on Wikipedia I do see references that would potentially meet the WP:GNG and WP:WEB requirements. Specifically the notoriety/controversy involved with #Bendgate and the viral video that was created by Lewis Hilsenteger. This content on Unbox Therapy [6] ended up with several worthy news sources, such as Bloomberg Television [7], CNN[8] and Forbes[9], reporting on it and either directly or indirectly pointing to this viral video. Even so much to cause Consumer Reports to do testing [10] and for Apple to respond to said product bend-ability in an article in Forbes [11]. For Wikipedia citations see the article Bendgate and here List_of_scandals_with_"-gate"_suffix#Technology. As for meeting WP:WEB, that's a bit more up for interpretation and I'm not sure I provided sufficient evidence too meet that requirement. --Mle ii (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.paris-normandie.fr/detail_communes/articles/5476431/blangy-sur-bresle--matteo-daffy-vice-champion-de-france-de-mansuria-kung-fu#.VzxQoatkg5g
  2. ^ http://www.dominicsaint-ange.com/presse.htm
  3. ^ http://mansuriakungfuschool.com/fr/page/le-representant-national
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvJQwO8Jiio
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKW-CyN5IFE/
  6. ^ iPhone 6 Plus Bend Test
  7. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2014-09-29/iphone-bendgate-its-consumer-reports-vs-unbox-therapy
  8. ^ http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/24/technology/mobile/apple-iphone-bend/
  9. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2015/04/19/apple-bendgate-solve
  10. ^ Consumer Reports test results find iPhone 6 and 6 Plus not as bendy as believed We stress test Apple's new phones, plus comparable models from Samsung, LG, and HTC. iPhone 6 And 6 Plus Bend Test – Consumer Reports News. September 26, 2014 08:00 PM
  11. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2014/09/25/apple-does-not-say-sorry-over-bendgate/
  • Delete at best as there's nothing particularly better convincing for the needed solid notability here. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2016 (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 Battle of the Bulge. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 01:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Währung[edit]

Operation Währung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This very minor sub-operation, part of the Battle of the Bulge during World War II, is covered in the main Battle of the Bulge article. However, there is very little information about this sub-operation (note the lack of sources in this stub), and verifying its details is highly difficult. This sub-operation does not merit its own article because the operation is not sufficiently notable. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as my searches are finding a few links but simply nothing else better, could be redirected if needed at all. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Battle of the Bulge, seems more appropriate than a deletion. The article can be revived in the future by another editor if they have enough sources and coverage to make this a proper article. st170etalk 14:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Battle of the Bulge, as there's hardly any information on it at all available. Maybe we could include a (sourced) sentence - if there are sufficient sources to do even that - in the "Operation Greif and Operation Währung" sections. GABHello! 00:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: in the circumstances, I agree a redirect to the appropriate section of the Battle of the Bulge article seems the best course of action. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I agree with the nominator that its own article is not req'd but it seems like a potentially viable search term so transforming it into a redirect seems more appropriate to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Battle of the Bulge per st170e.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have to give less weight to the "keep" views because they have not seriously addressed the argument that the topic as well as the contents are original research by synthesis. In view of this argument, I'd have expected somebody to cite a reliable source that defines what the "Republican establishment" is. Absent that, I must give our core policy WP:NOR commanding weight.  Sandstein  11:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republican establishment[edit]

Republican establishment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was probably created in response to recent political discourse where candidates branding themselves as mavericky independents denounced the "republican establishment". It then tries to pull together a definition of this bogeyman, based on a few National Review articles proposing what can be said to exist (essentially all things Republican) in lieu of the powerful 1930s party hierarchy, and a The Week article which (like many editorials) says the US Conservative movement (basically all that loves Reagan) is the Republican establishment. The Tea Party movement routinely uses the term to mean the current incumbents. All these things already have articles.

Since political figures are trying to say they are conservatives but not establishment, the article briefly tries to distinguish the establishment from social conservatives, a point made nowhere in the linked articles. A Pew Center poll cited toward the article's end neither defines "Establishment Conservatives" nor uses the term establishment at all. (Though this WP article's creator might be taking this from the Pew Center article's "Business Conservative", a label few of the above-mentioned political figures would use as a pejorative.)

After which the article struggles to narrate a history of the conflict based on figures denouncing the establishment, and impugning others as belonging to it. While the membership is not clearly defined, it appears Mitt Romney is in it, whereas Palin and Bachmann are fighters of it. Article quote:

Some people, such as Marco Rubio in 2016, can be viewed simultaneously as establishment and anti-establishment.

Phantoms fighting phantoms.

IMO, "Republican establishment" is not an identifiable thing, but a pairing of words that could be used to describe several things. If Wikipedia wants another political epithet article, rename to Practice of denouncing the "Republican establishment". If another WP:DICDEF article is desired, I have added to the article talk page three (3) very different things this term can be used for. Of these three things:

  1. The current day scapegoat would be the abovementioned political epithet article.
  2. The mid-1900s white shoe Republican professional institutional presence would need to be distinguished from Rockefeller Republicans; perhaps the latter might be considered more of a political presence. Either way, opinions seem to agree it had disappeared as a force by the 1988 suicide of George H. W. Bush's dignity.[51]
  3. The Republican orthodoxy article would be (I imagine) an analysis of hegemonies or the control mechanisms enforcing them, somehow distinct from what is (or should be) already covered in Conservatism in the United States. Could be interesting, but would require some impressive sources to become anything but a conflict-prone ideological essay.

Otherwise delete as WP:OR sourced to WP:SYNTH via WP:INUNIVERSE. I am confident Bob Dole would agree. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per WP:NOTESSAY. OtterAM (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is an essential topic, especially this year. It is notable enough for every major newspaper to have dedicated articles to it. Media have defined it in clear terms. And it is a constant refrain of the 2016 election. We have thousands of articles about topics people disagree about and define in a multitude of conflicting ways. See anarchism, for instance. If you think it has essay components, rewrite it. Don't pretend this major phenomenon doesn't exist. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep topic is real, and notable. Article needs improvement (what else is new?).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC) changing iVote, see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps as this seems convincing enough for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think that rather than reflexive "keep" posts, an assessment of the nominator's OR analysis is required.  Sandstein  08:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Taking Sandstein's point. iVote reflexively, because OF COURSE there is a Republican establishment (Also because putting solid article up for AFD appears to be part of this year's aggressive, angry political campaign) HOWEVER, this article 1.) Fails to provide tight, reliably sourced definitions os what the Republican establishment means, and, more importantly, 2.) an article about this term is valueless since the two words used in juxtaposition "Republican establishment" convey all of the meaning(s) that an article might. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your point; however, I think there is the potential for this article to be included within the encyclopedia. The subject is notable, and a very detailed article could be written from a neutral standpoint on the evolution of the Republican establishment, especially within the last decade. Hopefully this wouldn't duplicate too much information from the main Republican page, though inclusion there could also be an option. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - when I evaluate an article for deletion, my main focus is whether or not the subject is something that we should include on Wikipedia, without bias towards the actual content of the page. By that standard, this is a speedy keep, since the subject of the page is obviously a notable group of people. However, I do think that the page needs some major work. The lead section is far too long, and while there are a lot of references present, a significant portion of the content is not well referenced. For an article like this, I would expect some academic sources rather than just news; a quick search through my school's database shows some 50 relevant results within academic sources. I am focusing on another topic at the moment, but when I finish that in a day or so I would be glad to help rewrite the article. In the mean time, keep due to a notable subject and some good information on the current article. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject of this article is clearly notable. If I saw the title of the article, and not the content, I would be strongly be for keeping it. Sure, it has problems in it's current state, but these can be fixed. See WP:BEFORE. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some clearer consensus is needed. st170etalk 01:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wondered whether there was a verifiable definition of what the subject actually was, as distinct from the other subjects mentioned in the nomination. After all, given the number of historians, commentators, and political scholars who write about U.S. politics it should be easy to find a source explaining this if it really is a concrete concept. My experience is that it's actually quite difficult to find anybody explaining who and what this subject actually is. When I found Hess & Broder 1967 I had hope, until I read what Denis William Brogan had to say:

    Indeed, so far as the book has a thesis, it is that there is no Republican Establishment (Brogan 1967, p. 52)

    The nominator has cited John Podhoretz on the article's talk page saying the same thing. Please point to an authority that doesn't merely mention this, but explains who and what it actually is.

    Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hess, Stephen; Broder, David S. (1967). The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the G.O.P. New York: Harper & Row.
    • Brogan, Denis William (1967). ""The Republican Establishment" by Stephen Hess and David S. Broder". Interplay. 1. Welkin Corporation: 52–53.
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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Shore Arts Center[edit]

Jersey Shore Arts Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable arts center with no reliable sources to establish notability. Only brief mentions are listed. Tinton5 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't agree with the stated factual premise for the nomination: the article cites a very good and reliable source, a 2000 New York Times article that discusses the genesis of this institution substantively and at considerable length.[52] The problem is that, so far, this is the only source provided. Newspapers.com turns up a 2003 article about the Arts Center in the Asbury Park Press, which is unfortunately a paper not included in the Wikipedia access program so I can't read the whole article[53]; and here's a 2013 article from The Coaster, a weekly.[54] --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Expand / Improve as Arxiloxos points out, the source from The New York Times is a rather strong source that is clearly about the Jersey Shore Arts Center; The problem is that it's the only source in the article that's backing the claim of notability. With the additional sources available, the article can be improved, as the current version needs a great deal of work. Alansohn (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep per WP:GEOPURP 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 02:39, 26 May 2016 (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 D'Kings Men. Content can be merged from history if desired.  Sandstein  16:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cashflow (D'banj song)[edit]

Cashflow (D'banj song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this article when I wasn't familiar with WP:NSONG. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable source. This song needs to be redirected to its parent article.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Daniels[edit]

Rebecca Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The entire article is essentially sourced to a single link (and still contains a lot of original research). I couldn't find any better sources for this. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, found reviews of some of her books by Romantic Times ie. Tears of the Shaman - "Rebecca Daniels envelopes us in an atmosphere of brooding fascination .. Although Ms. Daniels leaves many intriguing possibilities undeveloped, she unerringly casts a spell over your senses in this fiery love story."[55]; Father Figure - "Ms. Daniels plays some interesting variations on a favorite theme with blazing passion and heartfelt emotion."[56]; Family Addition - "a romantic gem from gifted Rebecca Daniels. With topnotch characterization, a strong story line and fireworks aplenty, Ms. Daniels leads readers down a delightful romantic path."[57]; Mind Over Marriage - "a touching love story that offers a fresh and appealing variant on an amnesia theme. Ms. Daniels skillfully refreshes this classic plot with appealing characters and strong emotional intensity."[58]; Yuletide Bride - "keeps us breathless with excitement as our hero tries to keep the lady safe from a ruthless killer and protect his own heart in the process. Although resolution of the suspense subplot ultimately takes place offstage, Ms. Daniel's topnotch characterization brings her characters to vivid and appealing life."[59]; Husband Wanted – Fast! - "Although there is an innovative lovers quarrel, the continuing deception does not make a whole lot of sense and negatively influences reader reaction to the lead characters."[60]; Rain Dance - "Rebecca Daniels has created memorable characters in RAIN DANCE (3) though some of the plotting seems a little jumpy."[61]; Night Talk - "Rebecca Daniels nicely depicts her characters' fear and anxiety, which come from threats both real and self-imposed."[62], but have been unable to find anything else. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i have notified the romance project of this discussion on their noticeboard. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are these reviews by the website staff or are they user submitted? Sorry, I am not very familiar with the site. In any case, these reviews are quite brief and would require a bit more information about the author. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It ultimately depends on how the review is marked. RT doesn't allow random user reviews on their website - any and all reviews posted are written by people who work for the site in some form or fashion, meaning that the reviews undergo some form of editorial oversight. They're brief, but to date there has been no consensus that a brief review makes it invalid as a RS. However the thing to be careful of is that RT launched a pay review service RT Review Source, so anything marked as "RT Review Source" would not be seen as a reliable source. I don't particularly like that so many review websites offer review for pay services, but it's become sort of the nature of the beast and at this point we should still be able to use them as long as the pay reviews are clearly marked and the reviews used are not one of the pay reviews. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best, still nothing solidly convincing to keep. Delete and wait for better. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 19:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My curiosity was piqued: Could a woman write 12 genre novels, all commercially published , and they must have sold, or the publisher wouldn't have kept it up - and acquire no notability? So I ran searches on google Proquest News archive under her penname and legal name with keywords like Harlequin, novel, and romance and got absolutely nothing. Not so much as a story in a local newspaper or alumni mag. No opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • E.M.Gregory - Some of the genres, and romance seems to be one, are essentially reading islands. The same is true of TV soaps and some indie music genres. They have a tight, focused fan base but almost no bleed-over into what one could call the "mainstream." It makes it very hard to find anything other than fan sites that talk about them. I have a hard time knowing what counts as notable for these - they'll never get a NYRB review, that's for sure, even though they may have great fame on their island. Are we being snobbish? If so, is it somehow justified? I dunno. LaMona (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:LaMona Are there online media that follow this genre that could support blue links?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You mean online review sites? Tons. (Google "romance reviews" or look in WP articles for other romance authors.) The problem is I don't have criteria for deciding if they are "serious" - they are definitely fan sites. They gush over the books the way soap fans gush over plot twists and dishy actors. (For laughs, look at the photo to the left of the disclaimer that this is a "family friendly site" here). LaMona (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • If some of them are edited (articles assigned, revised under editorial control), and if the sites are discussed in reliable media, they could be regarded as reliable sources. I assume that in addition to reviews, they run stuff like author interviews, articles about particularly successful series and writers in this genre, publishing trends in the genre. New (online) media can be reliable. ONe way to tes tthis is to attempt, presumably in your sandbox, to compose and source an article on a site you suspect may be WP notable. IMO, sourcing editorial control is key to distinguishing between a group blog and a "real" publication.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned up the page, which removed the extremely puffy and promotional bio, which was also largely unsourced. Now as far as the question about how she could publish so much and not receive a ton of reviews, it's a bit tricky. The thing about Daniels's work is that she published, yes, but her books were published as part of Harlequin's monthly publications. By this I mean that each month Harlequin publishes 40-50 shorter novels that are pretty much the equivalent of how a magazine will publish each month. They're pretty much pulp publications that are mass produced each month with the intent that they'll be read and tossed. When I worked at a bookstore we were instructed to strip the covers after 1-2 months and either send them back to Harlequin or throw them away. They're not the same thing as a book that Harlequin publishes with the intent to be around "forever" (ie, until it sells out) on the bookshelves. Now as a result these titles usually don't get a lot of coverage because there are just so many works and so few people that will review them, so it's actually entirely possible for an author to release a ton of work through these monthly publications and remain obscure. Now this doesn't mean that they can't be reviewed and sometimes there will be authors that rise out of these ranks to become one of the authors that Harlequin is more serious about publishing - Nora Roberts started out as one of their pulp romance authors. (This is not meant as a slight, just that there's a marked difference between how Harlequin promotes their authors, depending on where they publish.)
The TL;DNR about this is that this woman published through Harlequin's pulps, books that were meant to be sold for only 1-2 months and then trashed. This makes it far less likely that she'd have been reviewed, but not completely impossible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep After the helpful explanation by Tokyogirl79 above, and adding the important caveat that while this author seems to have been relatively prolific and relatively popular in her field based on current online sources, she actually stopped publishing new material 13 years ago, I believe her notability under WP:NAUTHOR needs to be inferred from the available evidence rather than dismissed for a lack of sources. If she was publishing her run of Harlequin pulps today, I've little doubt the weight of specialist new media romance coverage would see her through even if she never made it anywhere near the NYRB; as it is, what she's already got (despite having been most prolific in the previous century, and despite not having written a new book since 2003) is still borderline acceptable, which indicates a certain profile, and that in turn seems favourable if we speculatively compare it to "current" authors in the same sphere and the same publisher. Perhaps some of Tokyogirl79's information could be added to the article to provide context. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - That her writings have gotten a reasonable amount of notice is clear, but I'm really wary about using these various websites being referred to as sources. There's also the core, central point: if even her writings don't get coverage outside of niche publications online, never brought up by local papers or anything of the sort, and information about her as a person is pretty scant... how can we even have a real article in the first place? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Finesse Music & Sound[edit]

Hi-Finesse Music & Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously put to PROD by SwisterTwister. Article does not prove why the company is notable and it contains no third-party, reliable sources. "Questionable for WP:CORP and WP:GNG". Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG; I would have been tempted to speedy this as promotional.TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Company has enough notability, creating music for trailers for major films. I have revised the article to bring in some refs and fix up the formatting.--Bernie44 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability, not yet solidly acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:33, 24 May 2016 (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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Groovesmiths[edit]

The Groovesmiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to have reliable sourcing in order to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly hi! 12:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this seems convincing enough, will need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 24 May 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital talent agent[edit]

Digital talent agent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed with no rationale Reason for PROD was "unsourced neologism. Dictionary definition rather than an encyclopaedia article." TheLongTone (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing for basic notability and its improvements; it this can be an article, it's best restarted. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 24 May 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mita Pal[edit]

Mita Pal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobio of a person with questionable notability. Now a executive producer is quite notable yes, but I can't find if she is as notable as this person claims to be. (And what the heck is a censor script writer?) Wgolf (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nothing at all for actual solid independent notability for her own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything that indicates that this person is independently notable.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:31, 30 May 2016 (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 Croatian Radiotelevision#Radio. Whether to merge anything is up to editors.  Sandstein  06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Airplay Chart[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Croatian Airplay Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This music chart was previously deleted in 2009 after an AfD, it was recreated in 2012 under the name Croatian Airplay Radio Chart, it was moved backed to this name in 2014 and a week ago I tagged it for WP:CSD#G4 since the article is only four sentences long, I figured it was substantially the same even though it has been four years since it was recreated. User:Nyttend disagreed since there have been eleven edits (not including bots) in the four years by nine different editors. I think this article still suffers from the problems from when it was first deleted after the Croatian WikiProject discussion and the AfD. Aspects (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question How can it be substantially the same? The entire deleted content was Croatian Airplay Chart is the only chart in Croatia. It contains information from all radio stations in Croatia. G4 is for reposts, not new articles on the same subject, and entirely new articles or entirely rewritten articles on the same subjects are not eligible. Unless you have substantial evidence that it really is a repost of the same content, tagging for G4 is quite disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:SINGLENETWORK violation, which means it violates WP:NOT#PROMO. Articles describing the airplay choices made by a single entity aren't a "chart" in any meaningful way, they are simply a promotional tool of that entitity.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question for Kww: the HRT's official website says: "Airplay Radio Chart measures the popularity and presence of artists and their songs in the programs of domestic radio stations." (Here, "domestic" = "Croatian".) So, since - according to this description - the ARC is created by compiling the airplay data from Croatian radio stations, it is indeed the national (or a national) chart, and WP:SINGLENETWORK does not apply? GregorB (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding is that it only collects data from HRT's domestic radio stations, making it a single network chart.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another sentence from the same page (Airplay Radio Chart je sastavljen na temelju zbroja top-lista stranih singlova s radijskih stanica širom Hrvatske.) translates as "The Airplay Radio Chart is compiled based on the sum of foreign singles' top lists from radio stations throughout Croatia". Here - as in sentence quoted earlier - these "radio stations" are not qualified, and I couldn't find more detailed info, so one cannot be certain either way. While a reliable chart should arguably provide at least a general inkling about its sourcing, I don't think delete votes should be based on assumptions. GregorB (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't have a time machine, unfortunately. I remember the last time I researched this, HRT's site described it as domestic HRT stations. You are right that they are no longer explicit about what radio stations they include. Perhaps that's the result of expansion, perhaps it's the result of sloppy editing. I think the latter, but I agree that it's not 100% clear. The reason it isn't 100% clear is because HRT is vague and we have precisely zero independent sources about the chart. If you think my WP:SINGLENETWORK argument is too weak, WP:N certainly applies: zero independent sources means it hasn't been demonstrated to be notable.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Croatian Radiotelevision#Radio or delete. As duly noted by Kww above, whether WP:SINGLENETWORK applies or not is perhaps of lesser importance; a much bigger problem is that it would be very hard to argue that the topic meets WP:GNG. Secondary sources are pretty much nil, and - as illustrated above - it is difficult to extract rather basic facts about the chart even using primary sources. GregorB (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This might shed some light (Google Translate). Daß Wölf (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, that's a very good find. It appears to show that WP:SINGLENETWORK does not apply after all, but the question of general notability still remains. GregorB (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sadly I can't help there. I tried to find some sources on Google, but the chart's generic-sounding English name really doesn't help there. Daß Wölf (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Otvoreni radio contributes data to this chart, as well as regional players such as Radio 101 and Radio Dalmacija, then the single network argument is null and void. And since the remaining national-coverage radio stations - Narodni and HKR - probably don't play enough recent foreign music to be relevant for such a chart, it could be that this chart actually reflects national radio airplay. The few gaps in coverage may come from a couple of remaining relevant regional players such as Antena Zagreb or Laganini FM, but that's about it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing GNG. Google search for "ARC top 40" at .hr domain, apart from the chart's web page at Hrvatski Radio does not reveal any significant secondary coverage. About the only RS with a more or less passing mention is this article in Jutarnji List [63]. There is also some coverage at Musika.hr, web portal I know little about, mentioned by Daß Wölf. (There is also much more notable domestic chart titled "HR Top 40", e.g. [64], but it's not what the article is about). No such user (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect to notability in Croatia, a domestic music chart can't really be more notable than a foreign music chart, because IIRC ZAMP (the Croatian agency that collects music royalties) redistributes something over 50% of its income to foreign such agencies and rights holders, based on the amount of airplay. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a reasonably popular national radio show, and most Croatian radio listeners would just recognize it as the Goran Komerički / Monika Lelas chart show that regularly airs on Croatian Radio - it's changed names several times over the years. But just because it's the most popular such show in the country that doesn't necessarily mean there's any significant coverage potential there. Just merge those two sentences to Croatian Radio and be done with it. Not sure if this current title is worth keeping, since they obviously changed the name again since the article was created, but it doesn't hurt to keep this redirect and whatever other old titles as possible search terms. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Croatian Radiotelevision as above. It seems the radio show based on the chart is better-placed to satisfy the GNG than the actual chart itself. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead as there's nothing obvious to suggest this can have independent notability, delete at best for now and mention at the other article however needed. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 June 2016 (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. and move to Miss Prissy (disambiguation) with Miss Prissy (Looney Tunes) being the primary topic. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Prissy[edit]

Miss Prissy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:TWODABS. Hardly there is something to disambiguate here that requieres a DAB page and a hat note could not serve for such purpose (see page views). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (see below) PamD 09:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC): perfectly legitimate dab page. WP:TWODABS says "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed", so is irrelevant and not "failed". No evidence here to suggest that either of these is the primary topic, so a dab page is correct. PamD 08:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are misunderstanding your own quote: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." In simply terms, if you have two topics, and one of them is primary than the other, you don't need a dab page to do what a hat note can do. The Looney Tunes character is primary than the dancer, because 1, it has its own article (the dancer is just a redirect I created to see page views); 2, the multiple links the character is linked to; 3, the multiple external sources that are about the character; and 4, Rize is the only film the dancer has appeared, making her a WP:BLP1E case. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 15:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At present, until your statement above, neither topic has been asserted to be the Primary Topic. So what you should perhaps do is to request a move of Miss Prissy (Looney Tunes) to the base name Miss Prissy, as you are asserting that it is the primary topic, rather than AfD-ing this dab page. Then add a hatnote to that page to point readers interested in the dancer to the film. PamD 11:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a respectable little stub at Miss Prissy (dancer) - she caught my interest and seems notable - but I'd be quite happy to see the Looney Tunes character moved to the base name as primary topic, with a hatnote pointing to the dancer. PamD 11:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I think it's safe enough to delete. Add a hat to the other articles. It find it evident that the looney tunes one is the primary one as someone said above. NikolaiHo 21:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "Miss Prissy" also has had cultural meaning prior to the 20th century, I added some relevant instances to the article.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there are still only two instances of the term as article titles. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Tpdwkouaa, you are required to write articles on those new subjects I added. Kthxsbye. (I am joking but my point is that it is silly to think "Miss Prissy" has only been used notably two times in all of human history.)--Milowent • hasspoken 11:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that scared me, In my alerts all I saw was Someone mentioned you: "No, Tpdwkouaa, you are required to write articles on those new subjects" I was so confused lol. I guess as far as your point goes, I agree, but I would think that the creation of those articles (by me or otherwise heh) would predate the creation of a disambiguation page distinguishing them. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving the discussion some more time to consider PamD's suggestion, with the hope of a clearer consensus. st170etalk 01:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the disambiguation page in existence. And possibly make moves suggested by PamD, but I am not familiar with Looney Tunes and don't have opinion about whether the Looney Tunes one is primary usage. The main thing is to keep a dab page, now with several entries. Even with just two entries, it was okay. wp:TWODABS states that a dab is not necessary, but it is okay to have one. And good to have one in fact if there is any possibility items will be added. --doncram 07:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move valid dab - more than two valid entries. Dab expanded since listed, and needs previous delete !voters to revisit. Agree with the primary topic above, so move. Widefox; talk 12:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Widefox above, valid dab but agree the Looney Tunes character should be primary & a hatnote to this dab. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 12:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's travels (1965-1977)[edit]

Timeline of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's travels (1965-1977) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:STANDALONE, no evidence is given that this is a WP:NOTABLE topic in its own right. Relevant information can be selectively merged to the main article. shoy (reactions) 14:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nominated.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not at all necessary for its own article, nothing convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
  • Relist comment: Note that the nominator also stated "relevant information can be selectively merged to the main article". As such, the nomination comes across as a merge proposal. North America1000 01:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic topic. As for merge, there's nothing here that would fit comfortably within the subject's biography. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AdroitLogic[edit]

AdroitLogic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NCORP; indeed, some of the citations are from PRWeb. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not at all convincing for any applicable notability, not yet acceptable. I myself encountered this at New Pages. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It is possible that a valid article could be written about this dish, but consensus here is that the current article fails WP:NOTRECIPE. If somebody wants to try to write a better version, I (or any other admin) can restore the original contents to draft, to use as a starting point. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiang Rai fried pork[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chiang Rai fried pork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Personal essay-like recipe with no references to establish notability. Dgpop (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this is probably a notable dish, but as it stands the article is a complete mess, falling under WP:NOT. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Thai name for the dish is หมูทอดเจียงฮาย (Google search: [65]) Notable websites simply describe how to cook the dish. [66] (from MCOT) [67] (TNews) [68] (Manager) --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 24 May 2016 (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.  Sandstein  16:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Kids phenomenon[edit]

Hong Kong Kids phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable in terms of WP:NEO, WP:NPOV, and WP:ROC Yannaynay (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yannaynay: Not sure what you mean. WP:NEO doesn't support deletion in this case because the phrase is clearly used and discussed in most of the cited sources. WP:NPOV are WP:ROC are irrelevant to article deletion, although we can improve the article if you can substantiate how the current article content is biased or irrelevant. Deryck C. 11:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deryck Chan, I suppose what I meant was that there are really only two reliable citations in english in the article that mention "Kong Kids" or "Hong Kong Kids". I'm not sure this is an actual phenomenon. Also, it seems to me to be a very vaguely-defined term. Is it a medical condition, a sociological phenomenon, or a derogatory term? If it is a real phenomenon, I apologise for tagging it, and hope that the article can be improved. Yannaynay (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea I understand that. "Kong Hai" is primarily a Chinese-language phrase so the English sources are mainly there to establish the prevalent English translation. In response to your question, it's certainly not a medical condition. I'd say it's something between a sociological phenomenon and a d derogatory term. Deryck C. 22:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, my view is for keep. The article is scruffy, but for a conceptual article such as this, a scruffy article is better than no article. Deryck C. 14:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have trouble finding reliable English sources, as the citations I see (Scholar, GBooks) are to the generic use of the term "children from Hong Kong". The concept may be notable (like, let's say, Hikikomori), but this really need a comment from someone who can review Chinese language sources. Was there any academic paper published that uses this term in this context? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This phenomenon has been significantly covered in Chinese language newspaper sources [69] [70], mentioned or researched into in several survey reports [71] [72], discussed in RTHK (the public broadcaster of Hong Kong) [73], and is the subject of several books written by different authors [74] [75] [76]. Thus, it should be notable enough to warrant its own article. Also note that non-English sources are generally accepted on the English wikipedia, so long they are reliable. --Dps04 (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe the lack of English sources led to the good faith nomination, but this seems to be well covered in Chinese sources and is clearly notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 14:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  11:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Wang[edit]

Jade Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marginally notable at best. Going through the sources given, they are all either tangential mentions in mainstream media, citations to things that don't confer notability or primary-sourced material by Wang. No listed third-party source gives substantial biographical detail, leaving this BLP constructed from subject-written primary sources and passing mentions. It is possible that "hacker hostels" are notable, but none of the cites about those contain anything other than passing mentions of Wang herself. A search for sources of notability didn't turn up anything substantial on this Jade Wang. David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit: or a rename to Chez JJ (the name of her "hacker hostel" chain) per Megalibrarygirl - David Gerard (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since a biographical sketch can be cobbled together by these tangential sources, I think the content passes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rename Passes GNG. There is in-depth coverage in these sources: Full-length Wired article about her and her work with Hacker Hostel [77], Paragraph long bio from Grace Hopper Foundation [78], and the New York Times felt that Chez JJ was notable enough to write about it [79],[80]. The coverage I've cited here and the other news sources in the article shows that she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaker bios are typically written by the speaker, so that would be a primary source. Wired source says very little about Wang. NYT source says almost nothing. As I note, the Hacker Hostels might be notable, but Wang isn't - are you suggesting a rename? - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd prefer a rename over a delete David Gerard. You have a good point that the Hostels themselves may be more notable part of her career so far. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for the needed solid independent notability, current contents are not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael-Ryan Fletchall[edit]

Michael-Ryan Fletchall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing at all actually convincing of the needed solid independent notability at WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. The current artice, which has not changed at all since starting in October 2009, and his IMDb basically say it all, not notable and not convincing of it. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article whose substantial reference is a 2008 piece from Gulf News which, though bylined, is written almost entirely in the first person and concludes with contact info. Elsewhere, there are a couple of articles (TradeArabia, Jerusalem Post) which quote the subject, but in his firm role. I don't see enough to demonstrate biographical notability, whether by WP:CREATIVE or more general criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and AllyD.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:11, 30 May 2016 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Karol[edit]

Jim Karol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is so noticeably troubled, I actually considered G11 and basically the better version is before the user Chelseagab came, see this, and my searches have clearly found nothing better at all. I also suggest looking at his IMDb which basically says it all, this. All in all, there's simply nothing convincing here. Notifying tagger Zeke, the Mad Horrorist. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost no references and is written like an advert. Fails WP:GNG. Tom29739 [talk] 20:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 24 May 2016 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerbie Zamora[edit]

Kerbie Zamora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still questionable for any applicable notability such as WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG, my searches have only found casual passing mentions at News, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only passing mentions in sources. Tom29739 [talk] 21:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 24 May 2016 (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) SSTflyer 00:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Kuksi[edit]

Kris Kuksi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently none of the works are in major museums, and there is no substantial criticism, only reviews of exhibitions. On the talk page, it is specified that the subject paid for this article to be written. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, I see nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable, these are just the articles with his name in the title, dozens more where he is a topic of the article as stated in GNG.
  • Acclaimed artist Kris Kuksi to make Lawrence Arts Center debut Lawrence Journal World-Jan 9, 2016
  • Kris Kuksi's sculptures at Mark Moore Gallery are intensely detailed Los Angeles Times-Dec 18, 2014
  • Kris Kuksi: High-profile sculptor shedding light on darkness Lawrence Journal World-May 11, 2014
  • Kris Kuksi Talks Sculpture Empty Lighthouse Magazine-Apr 2, 2013
  • Kris Kuksi's Beautiful Art Is Made From The Bones Of Dead Model Kits Kotaku Australia-Jul 31, 2012
  • Saturday Night: Travis Louie, Kris Kuksi and Mercedes Helnwein at ... SF Weekly Blogs (blog)-Oct 12, 2008
  • Kris Kuksi's Toy Sculptures are Nothing Like Toys GreenPacks -Nov 20, 2009
  • Kris Kuksi presenta nuevas piezas de 'rococó postindustrial' 20minutos.es-Mar 23, 2012
009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
these seem to be local newspapers, which are not reliable sources for artists. There need to be substantial criticism from professional sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:07, 24 May 2016 (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. General consensus to keep. A merger discussion may be started on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. UA757 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - At first I agreed with you, then I looked at the sources. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), this topic does seem to be one that has been discussed at some length in multiple reliable sources, all of whom considered it a significant subset of a very notable event. The sourcing is extensive, and the sources are not simply a small special interest. While rather strange, this has been established as notable content. As such, it should be kept. Fieari (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clear evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. If you are going to open another AfD for an article a couple of months after the last one was closed with a clear "don't delete" result, you should probably provide more of a statement than a simple "does not meet the guideline". What has changed in those two months? Why should it be deleted now? If there is something different here that I am missing, please do let me know. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This topic has substantial coverage, and it reasonably sourced. --Dcirovic (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. As such, it passes WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG, and qualifies for a standalone article. Source examples include those listed below. Also, some of the delete !votes above are entirely subjective, and do not qualify deletion per Wikipedia guidelines or policies, such as "it's a bloody Facebook group" and "Are you kidding me. This is ridiculous!" See also WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:!VOTE. North America1000 23:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 01:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pretty surprising, but this article has enough notable sources talking about it to have notability. And don't claim bias, I'm not feeling the Bern. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Facebook page has enough notable sources in the article. Most Facebook Groups lack any of these notable sources, including my favorite: "Theme Park Simulation Games". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2016 (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) SSTflyer 00:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Rosen (actor)[edit]

Sam Rosen (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no assertion or establishment of notability made here. Mr. Rosen fails WP:NACTOR since he does not have significant roles in multiple notable films, no cult following, nor does he have other unique contributions. -- Tavix (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - According to the references provided, Sam Rosen is an actor of only local interest. The references themselves declare him to be non-notable (in the wider world). Fieari (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're partially referring to a different actor. The Sam Rosen nominated wasn't born in 1952, so he couldn't have starred in Actor's and Sin. -- Tavix (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I fixed that bad wikilink. I have just linked him to The Oranges (film) to demonstrate he meets the multiple requirement of WP:NACTOR. IMDB indicates there are probably others. ~Kvng (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the two source seem to be reliable and significant. However, this is a mini stub and doesn't do the actor many favours and urgently needs expanding using the sources given. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable actor. Article needs much work to improve. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs work, not deletion. sources seem adequate.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:04, 30 May 2016 (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) SSTflyer 00:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man (1969 film)[edit]

Spider-Man (1969 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At first I thought this was a hoax-but as it turns out this is indeed real. But it is a fan film. So not sure what to say if this should be here or not. Considering fan films are not quite something that go here, though being the first use of Spidey in a film might be someone notable. If not deleted I say a redirect to Spider-Man in film Wgolf (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this didn't appear on the AFD list-I had to add it myself on there manually. Wgolf (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Spider-Man in film Delete. I thought this must be a hoax until I googled. However, I'm having trouble finding articles that aren't user-generated content with no editorial oversight. Does a Gawker Media site count as a reliable source? Instinct says no. MisterRandomized (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we can't source it, we shouldn't even have the redirect around, because there will be no sourced content at the target.MisterRandomized (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it IS sourcable and IS sourced. Lacking notability for a separate does not mean a topic cannot merit a redirect. And contrary to your "instinct", Gawker and its I09 are acceptable sources for fan films. And as one source you chose to bring forward, I09 is a great review. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on current content. This is a real fan film (currently available for viewing on YouTube), not a hoax. However, the article is completely unsourced. The plot description, which makes up nearly the entire prose content, is barely in English ("Duma do not like it, but Spaydi approaches him Dr. Doom begins in tselisya Merry spider podbigat to cover up her thoughts on the laser delivers in Spaydi and kills him.") and contains numerous errors (Doctor Doom is not even a character in the film; the main villain is identified as "Dr. Lightning"). The credits in the infobox are inaccurate (Steve Ditko is not credited in the film, and I seriously doubt that he was involved). Furthermore, no information has been provided about the circumstances of the film's distribution (how and where was this film released in 1969?). There are some online articles that discuss this film, so maybe the article can be improved, in which case I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but current state is not a reason to delete a topic that can be expanded through available sources. I note that at the time I am responding here, and due to the editorial efforts of Tokyogirl79, the article is no longer unsourced... thus underscoring errors in your opinion. While what was first brought to AFD was what you opined on, itnneded work and work was done to serve Wikipedia and its readers. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing is indeed hard to find on this, but I found reviews from Geek of Doom, Comics Alliance, and the Reelz Channel. There's also a bit of coverage in an academic text, although I can only see a snapshot of said coverage. A lot of this was buried under coverage of Glut's other stuff (especially his writing for the Spider-Man TV series) and most of what I didn't include were passing mentions here and there. The coverage isn't overwhelmingly heavy and this is a borderline weak keep for me, but I think that it's just enough to justify an article. I won't lose a ton of sleep if this doesn't remain on here, but offhand this looks to be enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY as the stub article improvements since nomination and following Metropolitan90's delete has shown the topic as meeting notability criteria... like it or not. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing my vote to keep in recognition of Tokyogirl's efforts on this article, which came to fruition after my prior recommendation. (As an aside, though, I ask the supporters of this article to review whether the main female character of the film is indeed Mary Jane Parker, because I heard no mention in the film of the character's name.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not - the character is never named in the film and in Glut's book he refers to her as the villain's daughter only. She's never given an actual name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Procedural, request move at WP:RM. Wizardman 13:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Watson Stadium[edit]

Charles Watson Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Name Changed DKHardee (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball -related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DKHardee: If the page needs to be re-named, you can do so by following the procedures at WP:MOVE. If the new name isn't currently occupied by a redirect, I can move it for you (just let me know what you'd like the title to be). However, there is no need to delete the current article if you simply wish to execute a page move. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - The rationale given for deletion is invalid. This merely requires a move to the new name, with a redirect retained from this title. Rlendog (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_May_24&oldid=1142621399"