Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 13 April	15 April >

Guide to deletion

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 redirect to Duchy of Normandy. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

County of Rouen[edit]

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

This article is a content (and possibly POV) fork of Duchy of Normandy. There is no consistent scholarly distinction between an earlier county of Rouen and a later duchy of Normandy. Some scholars, notably K. F. Werner, have argued for it, but it is hardly consistently employed and others have objected to it (cf. Robert Helmerichs, "Princeps, Comes, Dux Normannorum: Early Rollonid Designators and their Significance", Haskins Society Journal 9 [1997]: 57–77). The article on the Duchy of Normandy can handle the issue of the nature of the grant to Rollo, the theory of K. F. Werner, how the power of the counts/dukes changed, etc. The confusing titulature (and non-titulature) of the Norman rulers is covered at Duke of Normandy, to which Count of Rouen redirects.
The article County of Rouen as I found it dated the end of the county to 996 and spent most of its time talking about the 11th century. I excised the material that didn't fit, but my attempts to redirect it to Duchy of Normandy have been resisted. Srnec (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Srnec (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom - there is no scholarly consensus that these were distinct temporal entities and not an evolving style used to refer to the same entity, as with the lords of Pamplona becoming kings of Pamplona becoming kings of Navarre, which we all treat in a single article. Agricolae (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and protect against reverting) -- When I saw the title, I was expecting an article about a small fief, probably about a much later period. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - nom is clear, redirect makes sense. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Duchy of Normandy as per nom. Regarding protection, I think it is unnecessary for now, I am sure the user that resisted will accept any decision taken by the community with consensus. After all there was an urge to AfD if the nominator thought there is such an issue. --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Morton[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria for notable college coaches. -- Dane ^talk 23:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chez Starbuck[edit]

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

Search found no independent notability. Tagged for notability since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- wholly unremarkable subject & promotional CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources in the article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2017 (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. Nomination withdrawn, players meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Hall-Johnson[edit]

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

Has never played in a fully-professional league or at international level, in this case for a club in the English Premier League or Football League. No significant coverage that would suggest the player is notable outside of the current criteria. Monty (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in an EFL Cup match for Norwich against Crawley Town, BBC match report. Kosack (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above, and noted in the article, he did play for 25 minutes in a League Cup match between two fully-professional teams. Nfitz (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fair enough, that was an oversight on my part. I don't know how to close this, but it's pretty self-evident that I was mistaken in nominating the article for deletion - and reading it again, I have no idea how I missed that... Monty (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Rajasethupathy[edit]

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

GScholar count is low, less than a single page, and as an assistant professor fails WP:Prof scope_creep (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find one paper on GS with 256 cites. That is excellent but far from enough in this highly cited field. At the moment this looks like WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Whitt[edit]

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

Despite the egregious comments on the talk page, there is no evidence of notability here. He appears to be a local sports commentator with no evidence of notability. The two refs (one of which is a dead link) are from a local newspaper and the live link he wrote himself . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. A possible rename could be discussed on the article's talkpage. (non-admin closure) GermanJoe (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Bonabes, Marquess of Rougé[edit]

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

I can't find any proof that the person even existed. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Bonabes Louis Victurnien, Marquess of Rougé or Bonabes Louis Victurnien - this is the title in the French Wikipedia, fr:Bonabes Victurien de Rougé, which does have references. Under this title, more sources exist (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and he seems to have a significant biography in reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source from the French language article. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to withdraw this, but I don't know how to close the AfD. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolero (1997 film)[edit]

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

I found no notability per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes the film exists (and congrats to those involved in making it) but there is little info about in the four and a half years since the article was created other than it exists. MarnetteD|Talk 22:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is little info about this article.--Jobas (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2017 (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. Delete for BLP reasons: the arguments provided by Jytdog and Eppstein are persuasive. The keep voters have a good point in that there are a great number of references--however, it should be noted that Bizapedia and the website for De Balie (a cultural center in Amsterdam) are not reliable sources, and there are two or three more sources that are not journalistic media.

In the end, if the scandal is negative (and her contribution in it negligible), we should probably propose what the article would be like without that section--and the answer is, there's not much. BLP1E is invoked by a number of participants, and many of the delete-voters point out that she doesn't pass PROF and it is TOOSOON. So. In my opinion the BLP concerns are valid, and I have no choice but to delete. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Antoniadou[edit]

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

I am taking the unusual step of renominating this article, immediately after it was closed with "no consensus", so the community can consider the BLP issues here, which was not done in the prior discussion. The article, when it was originally nominated, looked like this and as the nomination progressed became even more promotional, becoming this. Around 11 SPA accounts edited the article, as is listed at its Talk page. After cleanup and as of this nomination, it looks like this.

There is a serious BLP issue here. Her initial notability was completely tied by others and by her in reliable sources, to her role in creating an artificial trachea in a lab run by a prestigious professor at University College London that was implanted into a person with throat cancer in 2011 by a prestigious surgeon, and this was widely hailed in the media, and she went on to found a startup to create artificial organs. Lots of hype and glory and awards and hope for her, especially as a young woman in a STEM field.

But turned out that the surgeon who did the first implantation, did that in 8 more people between 2011 and 2014, and seven of the people died (including that first person), and two had their artificial trachea replaced, and there was scandal driven by TV documentaries and mainstream media, and the surgeon was fired by 2016. And the professor under whom she worked in the artificial organ lab at UCL, was fired in 2016 for a different reason. And the startup was bankrupt by 2013. So - her original claim to N, which she and everyone else hitched her wagon to, has crashed burning all around her. She has apparently moved on and is doing something like health policy now, if this comment can be believed.

if this article remains in WP, the content must tell the whole story. In my view this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and the article should not exist. On the other hand, what happened is real and kind of instructive about the risks of biotech and of "glamour" in the world of science and medicine, and everything is well sourced enough. But the community should squarely consider the BLP issues, which it did not do in the just-closed nomination. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2017 (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/2017 March 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still stand by my first assesment that she does not meet the notability guidelines for academics. There is a reason the guidelines are set high, and that is to avoid overly promotional articles that do not tell the whole story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JPL, promotional is not a valid deletion reason.198.58.162.200 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI totally agree that it's a case of WP:TOOSOON and that she does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, since she is not and probably will never be an academic and not a public person. Also the article has many inaccurate things about her biographical elements, her education, her startup didn't go bankrupt or had any debt (dissolution doesn't equate with bankruptcy), and once again it's another thing to be in the scientific team that invents the prototype of an organ,a new drug, a new algorithm and another to be part of the translational team (that is usually a pharmaceutical company as it happened in this case as well, that obtained the IP rights) with the clinical team which was from another country that conducts the clinical trial. The way this story is presented is misleading to someone out of the science world. I agree that the page should be deleted because in my opinion it is promotional. Pictex (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC) — Pictex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Promotional" is not a valid deletion reason.198.58.162.200 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)198.58.162.200 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The was just closed days ago. The discussion has been had already. WP:GNG is there based on extensive sources. Repeatedly calling the article "promotional" is to no effect as it is not a valid deletion reason, unless it is so promotional that content cannot be rescued, and that is certainly not the case here. Nominator proposes lots of theories on her notability that are a synthesis of original research. I have to ask myself, with these kinds of refs, would this be happening if she had a man's name? 198.58.162.200 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as no consensus, in a discussion where many participants commented before the connection to the Karolinska scandal was clarified. So, now that we understand more clearly what her supposed notability was founded on, it seems reasonable to me to have another discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there's no credible claim of significance {{db-person}} and there's pretence of importance. The case of how the surgeon handled the patient has nothing to do with the invention itself, and it's shouldn't be reported as if it was her fault. If only all scientists were presented with how many patients died when pharmas conducted clinical trials.. Also why is it assumed that her award had been won about this when her startup was producing devices and she works at Nasa or in policy? I find the way it's presented intentional and sexist, but on the same time she needs to do so much more to be seen as a recognised individual worthy of a wiki page at this age. SteCID (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — SteCID (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

NB: there is no discussion of any "invention" that Antoniadou made in any RS. The answer to the "why is it assumed...." thing is that it is not an assumption -- it is what the awards and interviews discuss .Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Off to a good start (perhaps) but now WP:Too soon for WP:Prof and not enough in-depth material for WP:GNG. The rest is WP:BLP1E. Credit to the nominator for the investigation, which casts a light on the matter very different to the one in the original article. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

thx but User:Lemongirl942 was more diligent than me in surfacing the issues. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx to her indeed. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

User:Xxanthippe would you please speak to the BLP issues? thx. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note, blp issued addressed in this edit Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPF. It's a borderline case — there's enough material about the subject that one could easily argue for a keep based on WP:GNG, but it's not completely clear because much of this material appears promotional and not truly independent. But if we use this material as the basis for keeping the article, I think we must explain what happened subsequently — the deaths of the implanted patients, destruction of the careers of the higher-level people involved in the scandal, and the failure of her own company that was based on this same line of work. Based on the principle of avoiding harm to subjects in borderline BLP cases, I think we're better off deleting the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that comment. That states exactly the BLP issue that the community should consider, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I argued in the previous AfD, she passes GNG, she does not need to pass PROF. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Megalibrarygirl would you please address the BLP issues, which are the focus of this AfD? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Jytdog. My perspective is that if we have reliable sources for the negative aspects of her biography, then it should be added to the biography. I don't think it needs to be deleted. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Megalibrarygirl. This individual passes GNG based upon the significant coverage in neutral, third-party sources. I favor adding additional sources to the article and expanding it appropriately. Montanabw^(talk) 02:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Montanabw thanks for your comment. Would you please explicitly address the BLP issues here? thx Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY -- Improve the article; quality and notability are separate issues. Even a one-sentence stub can be about a notable topic; this person is notable. Montanabw^(talk) 01:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't address the BLP issues. You don't wish to, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Others have explained the situation exhaustively, I do not need to repeat what has been more eloquently stated elsewhere. Also, you do not help your own position by arguing with every single post. We all know what you think; we simply disagree. Also, speaking only for myself, it seems unlikely that anyone's argument will change your mind, so why spend more bandwidth beating the horse? Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my comments here have been simply asking people to comment explicitly on BLP. You continue to not read but to talk anyway. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have pondered and returned to this article numerous times, giving it considerable thought. I still believe she passes GNG and Prof is irrelevant as secondary criteria. As with any BLP, "including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back"... Based on policy, then, there is far too much detail given about other people and their actions, which is problematic. It might belong in a biography of Macchiarini, but his actions and sanctions do not belong in a biography of Antoniadou. While factual, it should be removed to talk page, IMO. Three or four sentences would suffice. "AT UCL Antoniadou worked in Alexander Seifalian's laboratory, which focused on bioengineering and scaffolds. While she worked in that lab, Seifalian was approached to create an artificial trachea; Antoniadou and a colleague worked on the project. When a doctor at another institution implanted the trachea, it garnered wide media attention and Antoniadou founded an ~~NGO~~ organization, Transplants Without Donors, which intended to use tissue engineering to develop artificial organs. Later the patient died, further implantations showed the technology was not yet viable, and the ~~NGO~~ organization was dissolved." Pared back, factual and not focused on someone else's actions. SusunW (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SusunW 2 notes. The startup was a for-profit, not a nonprofit which i assume is what you mean by "NGO". Also we don't know why it went bankrupt. Most startups die because they fail to raise enough money to keep going, and in the Nature interview she says that raising money is their biggest challenge. So that is probably what happened. (if it is, the reason why they couldn't raise money, could be any number of things) Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NGO is a non-governmental organization, they raise funds from private donations, not government funded sources. All organizations secure operational funds from some source. Doesn't mean that they are profit driven. The Nature piece doesn't make any claim that it is profit driven, only that they were seeking funds to forward development of products. Doesn't change the rationale for paring down the information. But, since the nature of the organization is unclear, I modified the text above. SusunW (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the notion that her startup (which is what she and everybody else called it) was a nonprofit. Startups are generally for-profits, and every ref cited in the article talks about it like it was a normal startup that participated in pitch events to investors, was seeking investment, etc. (for example, the forbes blur explicilty says they were seeking angel investors). Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the policy decision of keep or not IMO. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that is true! Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator accepts that the subject meets gng, but then makes the case that because of events that have happened since the references were created, that the notability has been diminished. Notability is not temporary, so even if her company has gone out of business (at least in it's original home state), even if patients died and a surgeon is discredited, if it was notable then it is still notable today. Jacona (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:JaconaFrere No, you have distorted the reason for the nomination. The reason people paid mind to her was really one thing - her connection to that artifical trachea and she started trying to build a career off that (the hope and hype business). There is a real WP:BLP1E thing going on here. And on top of that, that one thing has been discredited - beyond that, evolved into a horrible thing. That she really had nothing to do with. Deal with the actual facts here please. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's deal with actual facts. What did reliable sources do? While I see that you Don't like it, she was noted and discussed significantly by several reliable sources, as you have acknowledged. Deal with the actual notability here, please, not your opinion that it is "a horrible thing". Not your opinion about whether she had to do with it, but did the reliable sources cover it. They did.Jacona (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the nomination, I would understand a vote to !keep - her story is instructive. There is no "not liking" anything here; you have just now misrepresented me for a second time, leaving the first misrepresentation still unaddressed and have not addressed the BLP issues. There is nothing more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hold you to that. ;) Jacona (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the nom holds that their reasoning has been misrepresented, that is certainly not my intention. It appears that the nomination is not questioning whether the subject has received significant coverage by reliable sources, but still wants it deleted. In my opinion, that certainly seems to fall in the realm of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, things happened after her recognition, but WP:Notability is not temporary. Jacona (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

!votes that rely on misrepresenting others (third time now) instead of making their own arguments are generally ignored by closers. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, (umpteenth time now).Jacona (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as addressing the BLP issues, they are irrelevant, the sources cover the information. You say it became a "horrible thing", but wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and the thing, horrible or not, is sourced.Jacona (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving your own thoughts on the BLP issues. That is what was needed. As I noted in the nomination, I think keeping is not unreasonable but the BLP issues should be considered directly. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone has provided any evidence of bankruptcy, just "Involuntary dissolution", which is what the state does when you don't pay your registration fee. Bankruptcy is a legal process through which a company discharges its debt on court-provided terms (usually by not paying some or all of that debt). Many companies go bankrupt without being dissolved, and many companies get dissolved without going bankrupt. I've seen no evidence that this company had any debt, much less that it had its debt rescheduled. The alleged bankruptcy is mentioned as part of the noms discussion on BLP issues, but there doesn't appear to have been any bankruptcy.

Yes the content in our article says that the company is in involuntary dissolution. From the perspective of general discussion of the topic, everyday people understand "bankruptcy" to mean the same thing. Which is how I was talking here and at the article talk page. Not a big deal. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to everyday people understanding involuntary dissolution as being the same as bankruptcy, but if they do, it's similar to mixing "died" and "executed". There's a very important distinction.Jacona (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading the discussions here and on the talk page, I have adapted the suggestion from @SusunW:, adding dates where available to give a better sense of time course and Antoniadou's involvement. I felt it was warranted to specifically address the investigations (briefly) and include the information that the ULC scientists were not considered to have acted inappropriately, rather the surgeon was. I've also removed the interlink to "bankruptcy" (which appeared on the text "involuntary dissolution"). Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have reverted most of. Those edits were counter-factual and POV. The story is not pretty but it is what it is. If you think it is unwise to have a NPOV article about this person then please !vote delete. But obscuring what happened is not an option.Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... Almost all of which changes appear to have been reverted within minutes. I would appreciate it someone else would review them and decide whether they were of use. They did not contradict the cited facts; they specifically noted that there were conflicts and investigations undertaken, and they were not biased or inaccurate in doing so; they did however summarize extensive information which is not appropriate to the focus of this page. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They absolutely did contradict the facts. They were dishonest at worst or sloppy at best. There is no evidence her company was a nonprofit - in fact all the evidence is that it was a for profit. And every one of the nine implants failed. Not "some". The artificial trachea thing was a complete failure. Soft peddling that is not acceptable. It wasn't her fault, but it was her launchpad. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mark Ockerbloom, I disagree with Jytdog's characterization of the changes. Neither the number of implants nor detailed information on other people's actions and or failures have anything to do with a biography of her. Policy dictates that the amount of detail be reduced, so I am unclear on why that would be reverted. SusunW (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As previously pointed out, Jytdog you seem to confuse non-profit and NGO. Which is one reason why I linked to NGO in the edits you reverted. Linking (once) to the name of the doctor involved would be appropriate. People could go there or to the sources for the more detailed information. Including the dates is important for establishing who was responsible for what. An extensive discussion of the case is not appropriate here. Quoting above The case of how the surgeon handled the patient has nothing to do with the invention itself, and it shouldn't be reported as if it was her fault. Referring to the investigations should be sufficient for this article. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the place for this discussion. NGO is not what we commonly call startup companies in WP or in the RW, and the changes violated NPOV up the wazoo. And there was no invention. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I actually wanted to !vote "keep" but the sad fact is that this person was not specifically the inventor of a successful technology, nor even a credited inventor of a non-successful technology. Nor is there a source crediting her with specific research on that unsuccessful technology, and we manage to run this BLP without naming the other person involved. Going on "aid missions" is something a huge number of people do, and is not something notable here, nor are the other minor facts sufficient to assert notability as such. Really, I want more articles on women in Wikipedia, but this is not a successful choice. Collect (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW. Regarding addressing the BLP issues: agree with JaconaFrere's response. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I vote delete because this person has not contributed enough in science or another field to have her biography listed here. I agree with Mary Mark Ockerbloom on the fact that her startup was producing bioreactor devices and not trachea transplants or any surgeries of any sort. I don't agree with the inventor debate, as a masters student she worked on the prototype, because of course Professors don't even enter labs, but other than that she left for the USA as you already mention on the next paragraph (2010), while other teams got involved in the experimental surgery years later. UCL had nothing to do with the other 9 transplants either, it was completely different university teams and different tracheal prototypes used under that surgeon. I also agree with [[User: SusunW|SusunW] that there is more info on what other people done as if it is her fault. Overall she is too young to have a bio and wiki should have higher standards on who they include. Tzsagan (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promoting bio (with shenanigans, such as claiming awards not earned). Ifnord (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several of the sources demonstrate considerable international notability. Academic qualifications and/or status are not an issue here.--Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ipigott would you please directly address the BLP issues? Either way, but please address them. Thx Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. the sources presented in the article demonstrate a level of notability considerably over the wp:gng hurdle Govindaharihari (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Govindaharihari would you please directly address the BLP issues? Either way, but please address them. Thx Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Jytdog. I, on your nudge, have had a deeper investigation and have seen some of your concerns, I have moved my understanding and now lean towards a position similar to User:Collects, so I am striking my keep comment. Thanks for your efforts with this. Govindaharihari (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely passes GNG. Significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. However, the paragraph about the tracheas needs to be pared way back per WP:UNDUE. Most of the facts here are about other people. And the article does seem promotional, but that's an argument for additional editing, not deletion.
I hasten to add that I think this nom was totally appropriate. I usually decry repeat AfD noms that come so close in time after the original. But the BLP issues here (especially BLP1E and UNDUE) needed to be discussed and weren't covered in the initial AfD. Thank you Jytdog. David in DC (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For these reasons: 1) She has WP:GNG based on extensive sources, therefore she does not need to pass PROF. 2) As noted above, "AT UCL Antoniadou worked in Alexander Seifalian's laboratory, which focused on bioengineering and scaffolds. While she worked in that lab, Seifalian was approached to create an artificial trachea; Antoniadou and a colleague worked on the project. When a doctor at another institution implanted the trachea, it garnered wide media attention" 3) She posses international notability 4) As note above, she has significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Dean Esmay (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hmlarson would you please directly address the BLP issues? Either way, but please address them. Thx Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, but if you went and looked for refs you would find that all the RS are already used (you may find more but I doubt it), and you have not spoken to the BLP issues. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "beauty" of an AFD is the nominator doesn't get to control the outcome nor dictate other editors' assessments ... no matter how many times s/he types the same comments over and over again. Hmlarson (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "all the RS are already used", the article presently has 16 references, as a subject can meet WP:GNG with just 2 or 3 RS, it would be helpful if the nominator or 1 of the "deleters" informed us which ones are not RS or useable for notability, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the focus of the nomination. I don't know what to do about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so which WP:BLP policy does it breach to such a degree that the article has to be deleted? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does WP have a BLP policy and take it so seriously? We have it, to protect living people. It says "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.". So if you read the story of this person's life, her career was launched by her involvement in the project of her lab head and this surgeon, which generated a ton of press. (all of the awards she won and every source about her, talks about that work). The surgeon killed 7 people and his work had to be undone on the other two; her lab head turned out to be corrupt. She has (apparently) left the practice of science behind altogether now and is starting over... but there are no RS about that. So.. I said WP:TOOSOON; others have cited BLP1E, see the note below, and see David Eppstein's !vote above. Sure we ~could~ keep this, but a clueful !vote will at least take the BLP issues into account. (and no, we cannot soft peddle what actually happened, if we keep the article - that would be an NPOV violation) Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing the content as per policy is not soft peddling, as you have asserted. It is also a POV to insist on keeping all the minute details about other people in the article. The company dissolved in 2013; 4 years have passed. Those things that happened to others have not destroyed her life or career. The actions of others have not stopped her continuing her career, as she is still actively participating on the world stage in various capacities. [1], [2], [3], [4]. SusunW (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh she got a job with International Marine Contractors Association! Good for her! As noted she is out of science/regenerative medicine. Left that train wreck behind. I never said that anything stopped her career (it would be very hard to stop a go-getter like this person) - what I have said, and said repeatedly, is that her initial launch and trajectory has crashed and burned. Of course she is starting over and she may go on to do important things. We don't know if she will or not yet. Hence my TOOSOON vote. But if this stays, the full picture of what happened needs to stay and the community will not allow what happened to be buried in phony bullshit. If she goes on to achieve great things, having overcome this initial adversity will only be to her credit. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) (note - i just re-read and realized that this may come across as sarcastic. It wasn't. It is hard to relaunch, and it is great that she has found a job and is restarting. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Cruelty. The subject has had her career and reputation destroyed by the actions of others. I think it is wrong to use Wikipedia to pillory her misfortune as that, in effect, is what is being done here: WP:Do no harm. I would like to see this AfD debate redacted as well per WP:BLP policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment- Hi all, I'm a former student of Eleni from Greece, I wanted to say that this is a very unfair article of her because she has 5 degrees and is a person of poor background that won more than 20 scholarships to be able to go to the university. Also Eleni is known in Greece because she is the first Greek person to ever enter the NASA academy and to be an astronaut instructor, few people know about her medical research more people know about her space research and her philanthropic work at the elderly houses here in Greece. She was very helpful and kind as a teacher too and helped us to apply to universities abroad. I'm sorry I don't know much about wikipedia and it's rules, I just wanted to add this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LefterisP (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — LefterisP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The subject is notable per sources. BLP issues or NPOV issues, if there are any, do not indicate an article should be deleted; they indicate an article should be cleaned up so I don't see the need for discussion of BLP issues in the RfD context. If a subject is WP: notable deletion is not an option. Discussion on the clean up needed, if any, belongs on the article talk page not here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Delete -- insufficiently notable, and thus BLP considerations take precedence. Especially given the SPA editing, better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With respect to the BLP issues, the article uses verifiable sources and, in contrast to its previous incarnations, has moved substantially toward a NPOV. It is certainly not an attack page. The subject's notability, however, seems to me questionable. It is true that the basis of that notability is interesting, as it made a complete metamorphosis from "Oh Yeah!" science to "Oh No!" pseudoscience, and in both manifestations it received a fair amount of press. A former association with a team of quacks, however, is something less than a notable achievement. Lastly, I know many people who spend their entire lives doing good works. It makes them significant, and typically wonderful, but not notable at the level of an encyclopedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPF. It's a borderline case.Jobas (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I think there is confusion here as to what designates notability per Wikipedia. "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Per the reliable independent sources this subject is notable. Borderline notable is also notable assuming that is the case. What does not matter is the opinion of any editor here as to what is significant, or that the subject experienced failure; if that was published in a RS this is exactly what is notable. We aren't here to determine whether there is science or pseudoscience here. And we can't conflate significance with notability. Our test for notability is the sources. Are the sources reliable, are there enough of them, and what is enough? BLP issues, notability issues, and significance have been conflated with a dressing of opinion on the scientific aspects of a career. We have to clarify and delineate and edit out what does not matter at this point in an article's construction. RS. That's what we need and we have them. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

You are not speaking to the weakness of the sources, their restriction to being based on one small set of events in her life, nor to the actual BLP issues here. There is no pseudoscience under discussion so I don't know why you are mentioning that. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no pseudoscience under discussion...". Per Jobas "A former association with a team of quacks, however, is something less than a notable achievement." The subject has won numerous awards sourced. We can argue I suppose as to the significance of those awards. And as I said above BLP is not a criteria for deletion so I don't see a need to discuss it. If the discussion is BLP fine but BLP issues, as long as the sources are there, and I believe they are, and so do you apparently, "and everything is well sourced enough" does not point to deletion. These issues are being muddled together here and that is a concern.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hm. WP:DELETION does speak to BLP somewhat but more importantly BLP itself does speak to whether articles should exist or not. You are not dealing with what BLP says about that. I agree that some people have gone a bit far in characterizing the surgeon's malpractice; people have gone too far as well characterizing what the subject actually has done in her life thus far. It is hard to steer the middle and see what she did do, what happened around that, and where this young woman is in her life. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reference what you are referring to when you say, "BLP itself does speak to whether articles should exist or not." I don't see such reference.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The whole section Presumption in favor of privacy covers various aspects of how we consider the well-being of the subject above rote application of "there is a source for it so of course we say it" or "there are plenty of sources so of course there should be an article". The issues are hard with this person because all the hype and awards (which are not great sources) focus on stuff she did that fell to pieces. Earlier versions of this article didn't tell the whole story so were warped and fake; with the article telling the whole story we end up with all this WEIGHT on an aborted beginning of a career that has barely begun. Which is why I propose (and am not insisting, but propose) that we delete per TOOSOON. I could see that we would decide to keep it, but I find it ... unfortunate that so few "keep" !voters are really thinking through the BLP issues and the presumption in favor of privacy. A kneejerk "there are plenty of sources so keep" !vote does the subject and the spirit of the community consensus that generated and maintains BLP as a policy, a real disservice. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) Adam9007 (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iyad Rahwan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO on BLP Article. Prod was removed without concomitant additional of suitable references. Two current references don't mention him. scope_creep (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Sufficient work done add references to BLP by originating author. scope_creep (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2017 (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. If these are renominated, separate AFDs are strongly suggested. So Why 19:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Szu-chi[edit]

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

SvG, NSPORTS L3X1 (distant write) 21:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC) SvG= Sander.v.Ginkel. Was advised to bundle at AN/I discussion.L3X1 (distant write) 14:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [fails GNG and NSPORT]:[reply]

Keep all: have represented their countries internationally. (And what does "SvG" mean?) PamD 23:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said GNG. None of these people return anything for a Google search. Zip zilch nada. L3X1 (distant write) 02:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not the be all and end all of notability (admit, i sometimes forget this:))Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PamD SvG = User:Sander.v.Ginkel. The editor who had thousands of his articles sent to draft space if you recall that AN/I thread.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this acronym - SVG not helpful, not all editors would know what it means ie. query from PamD, and unsure as to relevance to afd?Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This provides a bit of background.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i note that Beatley has been blocked indef for disruptive editing (related to these sort of articles?) Coolabahapple (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, I blocked them indef since they continued to move such articles into the main space en masse, they will be unblocked after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Beatley and SvG articles salvation effort is concluded.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and definitely shouldn't be bundled. This is an article with 2 reliable references showing the person represented their country internationally - and not Andorra or Monaco, but a nation of more than 20 million people. Without being able to search in Chinese, I cannot say there are not more sources. This was also moved to the mainspace by Beatley only 2 hours before AfD; more sources may take time, but what we hae is enough. Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Com I suggest reading the AN/I discussion YMblanter linked above. If you want the article kept, userfy it now, mass deletion to the tune of some 75% is about to take place, I don't know when.L3X1 (distant write) 14:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability after ample time to demonstrate it. Ifnord (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets NATHLETE. afd is not a quality improvement process; if you have a quarrel with NSPORTS, and want to assert the supremacy of GNG, then change the policy. the mass deletion of articles that wery well meet notibility policy is proof of the moral sewer that prevails here. Beatley (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susana de la Puente Wiese[edit]

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

Article contrary to Wikipedia's TOU, falling foul of WP:PAID. GNG is not met, my own searches turned up nothing more than the usual interviews, "advertorials" and corporate puffery. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The available coverage doesn't connote notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2017 (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. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Kekistan[edit]

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

Less than one step away from a hoax. No notability. Just an invention that got tweeted about. Fails utterly to meet WP:GNG. Should be speedily deleted if there is a suitable category Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the articles and also the Legitimacy page in the references on the Kekistan website, this as legitimate country as places like Liberland, Sealand, Hutt River, and other places that are listed on Wikipedia. It has been endorsed by Russia, and it has a constitution, a government, a flag and a coat of arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinthomas1864 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as Trump hears about it and decides to bomb it. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has received recognition from the Russian Embassy to the UK, and has legal documents, such as a constitution on their website. They also have received more international recognition and notability than most micronations ~ not a hoax or a troll. They have the ability to be contacted and enter diplomatic relations, this can be done through their social media. It appears a lot of effort has been put into creating their legal basis, something that a simple 'hoax' or 'troll' could. KEEP & LET EXPAND Urshankov (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are notable micronations, but this is not one of them. A hashtag in a tweet from an embassy ≠ official recognition by that government. If there is any "international recognition and notability" please show where that is, because it's not included in the article nor is it anywhere to be found through Internet searches. --bonadea contributions talk 21:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolick reveals his reason for bias, when he refers to Trump. As (talk) has pointed out, this micronation has more legal recognition than many others here on Wikipedia, as it's been mentioned on a website of a major world power. Russian Embassy to the UK It has a constitution. It's been mentioned in news outlets such as Buzzfeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinthomas1864 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Guys, guys. I don't know if I'm more embarrassed that this wasn't CSD'd or that we're wasting time discussing this. There couldn't be a better example of a hoax. "kek" is a well known meme-ing term. What's next to it? "Dat boi island?" We're getting trolled fellas, and having a "flag" and "constitution" is about as credible as "Donald Drumpf". Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3 (hoax) and warn the involved editors for introducing deliberate factual errors into Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kek is also featured throughout Ancient Egyptian Ogdoad cosmogony, as can be seen here. This micronation also appears to be based on the geographic history of the origins of the Egyptian mythical creature. Rejecting the basis that a nation can be founded upon these fundamental principles would mean that we would have no nations to this day, as every single one has originated from a deity of some kind. I'm sure if this micronation kept it's traditional name of 'The Principality of Jonesia' you would have no issue with such? I am aware that this has become part of some 'meme' culture, but this micronation seems incredibly serious, and is far more functional than most of those in the list. Urshankov (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Urshankov: At the risk of getting myself warned or blocked, can you please stop trolling us with your bullshit? Take that nonsense back to 4chan where it belongs. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: If you're honestly trying to throw a petty insult because someone has done something you disagree with, you need to become more mature and realise people don't actually follow your little ideals. Due to such inflammatory and ridiculous behaviour, I would like to see your prior comment made invalid - as I'm sure if you read the rules you would understand that this is a discussion thread and is no place for personal attacks. Urshankov (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From comments such as Exemplo347 moaning about 4chan, and Drewmutt saying "Donald Drumpf", it is clear that you are showing bias against this actual country simply because of your political beliefs, and trying to delete articles that do not reflect your political ideology. The threat to block Urshankov is out of order. It is meant to be a fair balanced encyclopedia. This is a real country, that has been granted recognition by Russia and features in Buzzfeed. It has more credibility than the other micronations Wikipedia lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinthomas1864 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP & LET EXPAND Wikipedia has pages for other micronations such as Sealand, Hutt River etc.., all of which have received less international recognition and are less organised than this one. If Wikipedia has pages for these micro-nations, this micro-nation should definitely be allowed to have its own page. MeekoMeeko (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC) — MeekoMeeko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Seconded.

Abusing multiple accounts can get you banned from Wikipedia, particularly when you do it during Article for Deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: Who're you accusing of multiple accounts? As far as your lewd behaviour goes, it is unacceptable for this 'discussion' as you yourself have called it. Urshankov (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing people of making multiple account and actually engage in a reasonable, well argued, fact-based discussion as to why Kekistan should not be accepted into the community of nations despite satisfying the required criteria for a nation more successfully than any other micro-nation on this entire website. MeekoMeeko (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplo347 that's a bit low, suggesting everyone who disagrees with you is the same person - so is everyone posting to delete this page the same person? Ok, Exemplo347, Hyperbolick, Velella, Bonadea, Drewmutt are the same person and should be barred from Wikipedia for trying to delete articles that don't satisfy their Democrat party political agenda.

KEEP & LET EXPAND Kekistan has a constitution, land, international recognition and a citizenry willing to give their lives for the nation if need be. Hardly any other nation on earth can claim to have such a stature of statehood. Long Live Kekistan and LONG LIVE THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE! SHADILAY! Kekistani Nationalist (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page should stay as Kekistan does have international recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkle1984 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are nicer ways to tell people to cease and desist (oh wow! see?) then calling stuff sh*t of the bull. L3X1 (distant write) 22:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: IHello, may I ask why you have opened an investigation against me, although there is no evidence of your claims I am willing to be IP checked and such, just to prove that this is not true, and is infact, a false allegation. Urshankov (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check my ID - this is no sock puppet. Kevinthomas1864 (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Walia[edit]

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

No sources found to show subject meets WP:GNG NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert, this a non-notable journalist.--Jobas (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2017 (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. While the deletes outnumber the keeps by a small margin, there doesn't seem to be a strong enough consensus to justify any definitive action with this article. Both sides have compelling arguments. Additionally, the incident happened very recently, and new information is still coming out about it. This article was created on the day of the incident, and the AfD was started 8 hours after the article was created (which is discouraged by WP:RAPID for this very reason). There will be a better opportunity for a stronger consensus to emerge after the dust settles. If there are still concerns about the article, I'd suggest renominating in a month or two. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing[edit]

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

Article about a recent stabbing. No indication that it will receive WP:SUSTAINED coverage or have any enduring encyclopedic value. Likely fails WP:EVENT, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:PERSISTENCE.- Mr X 20:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC) - Mr X 20:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: if you choose delete, please remember to delete the edit notice. El_C 23:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is a terror attack receiving significant coverage in international media- bbc nyt, reutets, cnn, etc etc. Also local. Seeing the 2017 st petersburg metro bombing has an entry, there is reason to treat this terror event differently. The article itself is well sourced and well written. Probably both the article and the afd should've waited a few days.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, as I said on the article's talk page, that many editors who work on Israel-related articles on are observing the Passover holiday, which continues through Wednesday, and are not editing at present. As are many Israeli journalists. I suggested there that we should wait to hold this discussion until the country returns from holiday.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per usual. by this I mean that it has become normal to keep articles about terrorist attacks because they generate substantive international coverage, as is the case here.( cf. 2017 Paris machete attack, 2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers, etc.) Nom gives a WP:CRYSTAL argument for deletion, but, Note that in fact terrorist attacks tend to be revisited and referenced going forward, in this case, it is likely to be part of the growing attention being paid to suicide by soldier, in which, as Shin Bet is suggesting here, an already suicidal perp commits a terrorist attack in order to achieve a socially approved, even lauded, death. Note also, as I have argued before at AFD, that it is far easier to create articles on these incidents soon after they occur - and sources are available without access to paywalled archives - rather than to hope that someone goes back years later to create an article when an incident like the 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack or the 1996 Paris Métro bombing comes back into the news.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some content to Jerusalem Light Rail as per the discussion ongoing at Talk:2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing#Proposed merge with Jerusalem Light Rail. I see no reason this particular incident is more notable than any other unfortunate murder. AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stick a knife in this one, it's done. I think it's time we reevaluate the notability of terrorist attacks in general, since this is one AFD too many for such articles. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stick a knife" in this account: you're an indef blocked sockpuppet of DisuseKid. Striking through your !vote and comments.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:NOTNEWS and, by definition, WP:LASTING, but those policies are dead and never applied anyway. I'll note three things. First, there is already a page List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_2017, which deals with violent incidents of all kinds. Of those, only some incidents are given wide coverage and people create articles on them, but that situation is so normal that it's not even worth talking about. Second: the motives of the attacker are not totally clear; he seems to be mentally unstable and had a history of sexual abuse. Lastly, technically the creator of this page shouldn't be creating pages at all in this area, since they don't meet WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. The latter is not too important; I'm sure someone else would have created the page if not for them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just imagine how stupid would it be to actually have this attack as a stand-alone article in a written encyclopedia. This attack hasn't yet generated any significant outcome. It is only that a foreign resident was killed, so obviously some British newspapers and other international sources would care. I also don't see a reason for this incident to be recorded on the rail's article, especially not in more than one sentence. The community should start having a consensus to start articles on recent terror attacks rather than having a consensus to remove them, we always have someone starting an article and then thanks to democracy, which is not the way of Wikipedia, we end up with countless articles about incidents that usually generate news reports because the media likes to support terrorism by popularizing it and enjoy ad revenue. The only reason for this article and other simmilar articles to exist is that there is "major news coverege" on that matter, but that's not enough to justify a Wikipedia article.

If we look at the article we have and remove the section headlines, it really looks like no other than a news article:

News article in Wikipedia

The attack occurred at about 1:00 pm April 14, 2017, as a knife-welding man stabbed a 23 years old British tourist. An off-duty police officer riding the light rail pulled an emergency brake and tackled the perpetrator, who was then arrested.

According to Israel's domestic security service, Shin Bet, the attacker was known to the authorities and this may have been a “suicide by soldier,” a phenomenon seen in other incidents in the last 18 months, "in which a Palestinian suffering from mental health or personal issues has chosen to carry out an attack as a way out of his problems."

Stabbing attacks were rare in Israel in 2017, although there was a spate of them in the fall of 2015 and early 2016. The attack took place as crowds of pilgrims form around Israel and the world gathered in the center of Jerusalem ot celebrate Good Friday.[5]

The attacker was Gamil Tamimi (57), a Palestinian Arab from the Ras al-Amud neighborhood of East Jerusalem who was known to security services had recently been released from a mental health facility where he was treated for attempted suicide.

In 2011 Tamimi was convicted of molesting his daughter.

Hannah Bladon, a 21-year-old student in Israel on an exchange program from the University of Birmingham was killed in the attack.

Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu said: "Radical Islamic terrorism is striking world capitals. Regretfully, terrorism struck today in Israel's capital – Jerusalem." Israeli President Reuven Rivlin said “The bitter news of the young woman’s death in a terror attack in Jerusalem fills me with deep sorrow.”

Mark Regev Israeli ambassador to the UK, said: “My thoughts are with the family and friends of UK student Hannah Bladon, who was murdered in a senseless act of terror in Jerusalem today."

Per WP:LASTING, this article is also too early, though I strongly believe it won't have any significant impact with encyclopedic value in the future. The attack didn't generate any big controversy, there isn't a big, complicated story here, there was no real response, millitary, legal or whatever, that followed this attack, only shock and grief.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some news media have now responded to your comment [;-)] by ginning up a controversy around the fact that perp is entitled to a monthly stipend paid by the Palestinian Authority from a budget subsidized by British taxpayers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no comment on whether the event is notable or not, but per E.M.Gregory's comment I think the discussion should be put on hold until more experienced editors from Israel get to comment on the issue. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Content decisions can and should be determined by consensus of all editors, not a special group of editors.- Mr X 13:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are supposed to run for a week, so they will have plenty of time anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, which is still a policy (or so I've been told) and policies trump guidelines (or so I've been told). — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kееp WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here is not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities".Its meets WP:CRIME as "high-profile criminal act" and WP:DIVERSE--Shrike (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, please read the full policy of the pages you adduce, for instance the advice on that policy page to refrain from creating articles on the strength of breaking news. It's just below the section you cite.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read it.But you maybe missed WP:RAPID--Shrike (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per arguments made by Shrike, and others.Juneau Mike (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This will be, as usual, voted in. The policies are clear, and it is in violation of them all, and none cited here have any other function than to give the impression this has something to do with policy. The only principle governing these articles is that any act of lethal violence undertaken by a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian has encyclopedic value. It's a form of politics on Wikipedia that survives by inattention to the clear evidence of our guidelines. Shrike for example reverts out this as non violent from thelist, an episode widely reported as causing a sick Palestinian child's death by deliberate medical neglect because they could not extort from him information about his neighbours (here,here,here here, here,here, here etc.) The incident is widely reported. This cannot even be listed as as form of extortionate violence leading to a death. One could, as is being done in this article, compose an article on the case and hope it would not be deleted. No. Responsible editors refrain from that because, however tragic, indeed evil, the incident may have been, it fails wiki criteria for notability, as does most of the daily thuggery in that area, which is best left to lists. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't there a list this can go on? There doesn't seem to be enough to say about it to warrant an independent page, and I don't forsee significant additions being made to the content in the future. There is the same problem in some articles about terror attacks in Turkey where there isn't enough to say to meet notability guidelines, just a one-day news event. Fortunately Wikiproject Israel has a couple of pretty comprehensive lists this data could be added to. The category Kurdistan Workers' Party attacks has 6 articles. Palestinian terrorism has 169 pages and an additional 7 subcategories. Agree, "The only principle governing these articles is that any act of lethal violence undertaken by a Palestinian against a non-Palestinian has encyclopedic value" Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that In fact, when sources exist to support notability, we add incidents to a list AND keep the article, cf. Zürich Islamic center shooting, 2017 Paris machete attack, etc.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response I don't think a one day news event constitutes sources to support notability. If in the future this attack is studied in further secondary sources, and becomes significant in terrorism studies for any number of reasons editors have listed above (including policy changes, military action, or some other widely covered social significance like the gay pride stabbing) - then it could be added. Maybe it's too soon, but not every stabbing in every city in every country of the world meets notability guidelines only because it was covered briefly in news sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per excellent arguments by Bolter, Nishidani and Seraphim. --NSH001 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion arguments based on the assertion that this article is sourced to "a one day news event" have been obviated by events in the days since the attack, including perp's mental status exam, widely covered public memorials at sporting events in Britain, and a developing controversy regarding British taxpayer subsidy of monthly stipend paid to this and other terrorism-motivated attackers by the Palestinian Authority.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that news coverage is ongoing, and will undoubtedly continue through the trial; it always does. Today's headline: Palestinian awaits mental evaluation after stabbing, killing British woman, [5]..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, there is also a WP:BLPCRIME issue Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sadly, since international coverage has been very similar, the sole difference between this and such recent AfD debates about stabbing attacks such as Munich knife attack, Reutlingen knife attack, 2016 Würzburg train attack, 2016 Ohio machete attack, 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, 2016 Charleroi attack, 2017 Paris machete attack 2016 Russell Square stabbing is the insistence by wikipedia editors that attacks by Palestinians should receive special treatment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. You specialize in these silly articles, that can be summed up in any one of our numerous lists in 3-4 lines. I like many other editors could make several articles a month on similar things occurring to Palestinians - for every Israeli killed by this violence, several Palestinians are shot in very dubious circumstances, many in violation of Israel's obligations as a belligerent occupant of their land - but there is a general agreement among several of us that we should not imitate the POV pushing bad practice being used to promote unilaterally an Israel-the-victim-of-Palestinian terrorism mentality on Wikipedia. As long as drifting editors unfamiliar with this state of defiance of clear protocols continue to lazily vote instead of examining the merits, this crap will stay in, and consolidate wiki's repute for its WP:systemic bias in the I/P area.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please assume good faith. This article helps demonstrate a clear concern on what's happening abroad. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Meaning everything should have an article on Wikipedia. If you are familiar with policy (WP:AGF), you should be familiar with WP:NOTNEWS. Not one remark by those promoting this 'stuff' seriously addresses that issue, and the detailed policy guidelines regarding what is of long-term encyclopedic interest, and what is just a blip in a news cycle. Get out of the toxic I/P mental framework of battling to promote a POV, and apply the reasoning used here, and you would get a wiki article on this, this, this,this,this, this, etc.etc. The only reason this is covered is that it is the Middle east conflict and involves an Arab Palestinian. All the other incidents occur in the US, and everywhere else in the world every day, and do not rate as articles. That is what WP:Systemic bias is all about. It's quite disgraceful, but worse, a deliberate abuse of wiki space to push a POV.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This is covered" because of the massive internationl news coverage, the same reason why we have: Munich knife attack, Reutlingen knife attack, 2016 Würzburg train attack, 2016 Ohio machete attack, 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, 2016 Charleroi attack, 2017 Paris machete attack 2016 Russell Square stabbing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question. What you are saying is that an attack by a known Arab militant, or a personal suspected of being motivated by ISIS gets coverage (I'm fine with that), therefore any attack by any Arab on a non-Arab must get coverage, even if he's a suicidal psychiatric patient, though we do not give coverage to any of the daily knifings by Americans, Italians (3 every week recently), English 'ordinary people', etc. The conceptual distinction is clear, and wiki excludes the latter.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those who write these articles on Arabs never write articles like

US airstrike on Al Jinnah mosque bombing, 45 civilians (Syria) (2017)

US Boz bombing of 33 Afghani civilians (2016)

US aistrike kills 33 Afghani civilians at Azizabad (2008)

10 Yemeni civilians killed in US airstrike 2017

From the perspective of those massacred (these events occur regularly once or twice a month, and have done so for over a decade) such attacks out of the blue are seen as we see the terrorist attacks we make articles on. In this Wikipedia is not global, but angloamericocentric, reflecting its own news and political interests. Anù the selectivity is quite deliberate, to promote a victimized by Arabs mentalityNishidani (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. and refrain form personal attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines are that we follow the sources. Sources exist to support this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I do assume good faith, let me refer you once again to WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS - most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion - if you are writing on human shields and looking up citations from 10 years ago as research for your topic, most likely that is appropriate. If your peer-reviewed or specialist secondary sources cite news articles for a particular issue, most likely it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you are posting an article that is entirely about a single news story, which is not covered by any significant scholarship outside news reports, most likely, that is not appropriate. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The mere existence of sources does not necessitate the creation of an independent article. WP:Notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.- Mr X 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intense coverage supports keeping the article; the British press has been all over this story. As do the precedents I list above. WP:RAPID also applies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bolter et al. I bet this one will be going to Deletion review. In the future, for best results, wait until thing has blown over before XFDing it. Easier. L3X1 (distant write) 21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. Experienced editors need to have common sense about notability; independent news coverage immediately after the event does not make this notable. Stabbings happen (sadly) on the regular but they do not become articles. This is what policies are for people, come on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I argued for its inclusion in List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017, but not every such news story deserves its own article. El_C 23:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki to WikiNews per Bolter21's reasoning, without prejudice against creation of a Wikipedia article should WP:LASTING effects occur. There's really nothing here beyond a summary of the events and the condemnations by various dignitaries. As it is, it's a bit awkward that this was created and nominated on the day of the event, as it's too soon to tell if it will fulfill LASTING, but considering the frequency of terrorist incidents that happen in the Middle East, I'm leaning towards no. Daß Wölf 00:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and institute clear guideline to ban wikiwashing campaigns and that obvious acts of terrorism are always notable, and not covered by the NOT NEWs which is always brought out everytime there is a terrorist attack. There should be an article on the increasing trend to stage terrorist attacks as "routine" crimes by mentally unstable people which appears to be a common and deliberate tactic of clandestine warfare. It is absurd to claim that even if the Israeli government declares an act of terrorism, it should not be covered as an act of terrorism by wikipedia. "unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable " In fact, the opposite should be true, when in Israel, every attack by an arab on a non-Arab is instantly recognized as a terrorist attack, elsewhere in the world, every similar attack when there is no other obvious motive should be recognized as a possible terrorist attack, instead of being instantly deleted as "routine news". Many terrorist sprees such as Ali Muhammad Brown killing two gay men and a student and the D. C. sniper attacks started out as "routine" murders with absolutely no evidence suggesting a terrorist motive. Indeed in the case of Shooting of Robert Godwin, if this was an arab killing a Jews in Israel, there would be no doubt as to motive, yet in the United States, no source suggests any possibility of a political motive when it is always an obvious possibility. Bachcell (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bachel just curious how do you conclude this is an "obvious" act of terrorism when even the very article your voting to keep and current news sources state it is a possible act of terror? This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is not a news source: editors tend to assume things that are not verified yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While we are pontificating on the lacunae of law, how did you arrive at the conclusion that motive is an element of a crime? You must be confusing motive with intent, and there is significant doubt, not only in the United States, but also in Israel, as to how this line of jurisprudence should develop. If you are talking of terrorism as a specific intent crime, it may not be what you were hoping for. While I support discussing current scholarship and legal developments about this on the relevant pages, we need to be sensitive to the BLPCRIME restriction in ongoing criminal cases. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C made a good point here regarding his confessed motivation. The problem is he contradicted himself in other reports (Ynet) by saying:'(I)"didn't mean it," and apologized to Bladon's family when asked to comment.' Given his mental condition, I would expect any number of self-contradictory statements to emerge like this, and therefore intent or motivation will be, as often in such cases, almost impossible to nail down, and you will have contradictory input and clashing assessments from psychaitrists depending on whose version they are called to testify about. Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a crystal ball, but maybe the case will be notable, if there are significant legal developments. The fact pattern seems to be developing in an unusual way. I still think delete is best for now, without prejudice to recreating the article if it satisfies notability in the future. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pr WP:NOTNEWS, Huldra (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't see any persistence behind this story; just a crazy person with a knife:

"attacker had been arrested at the scene and is believed to suffer from mental illness" link.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by multiple sources - e.g. [6] - shin-bet has stated: “This is another incident of many in which a Palestinian suffering from mental health or personal issues has chosen to carry out an attack as a way out of his problems,”. Just because he had issues (he attacker after calling members of his family which refused contact due to the sexual molestation of family members) - doesn't meeting this wasn't terror (it has been labeled as terror by the relevant authorities) - as such an attack is a way to redeem one-self religiously and socially - and multiple terrorists (both in this wave and in previous waves) had a desire to die - just they decide to die killing out non-Palestinians and not by jumping off a roof or in front of train - this is a statistically significant phenomena, which isn't new - Pedahzur, Ami, Arie Perliger, and Leonard Weinberg. "Altruism and fatalism: The characteristics of Palestinian suicide terrorists." Deviant Behavior 24.4 (2003): 405-423 [7], and is exhbitied in other places as well - e.g. the Charlie Hebdo attackes [[8]] and the Bataclan attackers had an assortment of personal issues as well - [9]. The existence of a pre-existing motive to die does not preclude terror - to the contrary, this is a definite characteristic of many of the attackers in many such attacks (by Palestinians and non-Palestinians).Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should merge this article into Suicide attack per above comment Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - a moment of silence was held for for the victim at a Derby County game, which received wide coverage - for instance BBC - [10]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 07:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Continued coverage (including the moment of silence mentioned above) prove the article meats WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING. Rami R 08:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many WP:RS establishing notability. This was an international incident with international coverage. OtterAM (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am strongly against the idea of merging the articles. The other article, Jerusalem Light Rail, has a different and much broader focus, and doesn't have enough room in it for the information contained in this article. OtterAM (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. OtterAM (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, Attacks like this by the IDF happen all the time against Palestinians but never get their own article so why should this? Mention it on List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017. I agree 100% with Nishidani that attacks like these against Arabs never get the level of attention that attack perpetrated by Arabs get. Not saying this was intentional bad faith by the creator of the article but it's just how the world works. Perhaps, the issue lies more in that people aren't wiling to make an article where Arabs are the victim rather than the other way around. Consistency is all I ask for. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that today's headlines "Palestinian who stabbed British woman to death ruled fit for trial" [11], makes it clear that far from being the single news cycle event asserted by multiple editors above, coverage will continue as perp is tried and sentenced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Every crime leads to a scheduled trial, ergo, every crime must have a wiki article because the time gap between the event and the court trial makes it a 'durable' reality! Jeezus. Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly if it is reported by WP:DIVERSE sources.--Shrike (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, you mentioned WP:DIVERSE above, and are repeating yourself after I asked you to actually read that policy. I'll plug it down here to ensure you do.

'Similarly, where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability (see Wikipedia:Bombardment).

Wikipedia:Bombardment Wikipedia's notability guidelines state that a subject is notable if there are multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This suggests that an article bristling with sources should be safe. However, not all sources are equally valuable. A source may be reliable, but only cover a subject in a trivial manner, and if a subject is covered only by trivial mentions then it may not be notable no matter how many of them there are (see WP:BASIC).

For example, single events may be given bursts of news coverage in hundreds of newspapers around the world, prompting hundreds of news articles published on a single day. From the next day, not a single news source can be found. Even if coverage continues for a period of time, local interests are not always viewed as encyclopedic.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are ongoing diverse reliable sources - it should be in wikipedia. Just like Murder of Carol Cole (single victim, by stabbing) is for instance. We should not judge why the international (and local) media ascribe significance to Jihad inspired murders (particularly of young white women - even more so when the killing is on Good Friday in Jerusalem) - it is clear that they do, hence there is a place for an article. Those complaining about the coverage, should complain to NYT [12], WP [13], BBC [14], the Guardian [15], Haaretz [16], thousands+ article (hard to asses GNEWSHITS when they are over 100,000 supposed top-line (which is incorrect and includes potentially links to from other places) etc etc - it is not our place to judge why others consider this noteworthy, but to assess the noteworthiness ascribed to the incident by others. Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'it is not our place to judge why others consider this noteworthy'.

Actually it is our job to judge why editors think this kind of event. but not similar incidents occurring to Palestinians or Arabs, is noteworthy. It's PR for one party in a conflict, obviously. For several years, every day an incident like this arises, I have seen two or three editors, usually the same folks jump on it, write it up as an article, and then defend it at the inevitable AfDs. That these articles are written within hours of the event, before anyone knows if it may pass durability-over-time evidence, is prima facie evidence that policy is being systematically ignored, in order to get wiki space for another murderous Arab incident. Many get deleted by consensus for all the reasons given above. Quite a few slip through because many passing editors have no knowledge of this practice in the I/P area. It's a simple game. Incident+victim+death or trial of attacker, reactions: you can bloat that into a page, or sum it up in 4/5 lines. There is no POV pushing in the deletionist approach. The only neutral way to handle this is a chronological list, summarizing every incident of violence by whichever party, as has been done. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTADVOCATE Your argument, that Israel/Palestinian - related articles must be judged by different standards than articles about other parts of the world is against policy. Palestinians don't get their own special rules. And we are not here to Right Great Wrongs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

non-Palestinian terrorist attacks also get created same day - e.g. - 2017 Fresno shootings which was created within hours of the event, and several others (e.g. - 2016 Magnanville stabbing). These get created - because there is wide coverage in reliable sources of the events, with the usually reasonable expectation that the coverage will be continuing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, stabbing attacks do not even have to be terrorism-related to garner sufficient coverage to be Notable. c.f. Reutlingen knife attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They get created because WP:NOTNEWS is dead, and has been for a long time. If you look at 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, it is entirely sourced to contemporary news reports in December 2015. There was a catchy phrase which was in the news at the time. Apart from that, there was a brief bit of news coverage in mid 2016 when the attacker was sentenced. That's basically it. Otherwise, the incident has no lasting impact. The same will be true of this event. But I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that these pages will continue to get created because a significant portion of the userbase wants these "breaking news" articles, and it is a significant driver of traffic and volunteers. It's fun to create a page which gets to the top of the Google search results immediately. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has, in fact, been ongoing coverage, cf :"Leytonstone Tube attack: Isil-inspired knifeman jailed for life after targeting strangers at Underground station "[17]. Plus brief discussions in at least 2 books [18] , [19], although the attack occurred just over a year ago. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that attacks like this one and the close parallel 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack inevitably come up again and again in news articles such as "Before U.K. Parliament violence, a timeline of other attacks on Britain " Toronto Star, [20] explains why we keep them. Readers find them useful, ~2,000 a month visit that Leytonstone [article.https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=2015_Leytonstone_tube_station_attack].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can do a Google search as well. Apparently, it's hard to read what I wrote: Apart from that, there was a brief bit of news coverage in mid 2016 when the attacker was sentenced. None of the mentions in the books you cited are of any significance: they don't discuss the attack in any sort of detail (only a sentence or two). That does not count as "ongoing coverage". This is because the attack has had no lasting effect, just as I said. Your numbers are also wrong: the typical pageviews are about 500 a month, except for some spikes around mid 2016, and one during the recent Parliament attack. Look at the daily chart here: the typical daily pageviews are less than 20 a day. I don't know if readers find them "useful", and I am rather ambivalent about the whole matter, but Wikipedia should stop pretending that WP:NOTNEWS is policy, because it clearly is not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we delete articles all the time as per WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Crime/archive), just not articles that drew the kind of national and international attention these two have drawn.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, Offhand, how many of the articles you have written on this topic have been deleted after AfDs? Quite a few, from memory.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: you seem to have an extremely poor memory. But I am happy to WP:AGF and point out to you that if you want to know this sort of thing, you can look at my editing record - or that of any editor - and find a list of all articles that I have created, with a notation of those that have been deleted. I trust that you will report back here on the number of articles in "this topic" that you find. By the way, how do you define "this topic"? I/P? Terrorism? Crime? After making that assertion, I do feel that you owe us an accurate report on how many articles I have created and how many have been deleted, on "this topic." And at what point in my editing career they were deleted? Also on how you iVoted and who nominated the articles for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and I have created 359 articles since joining Wikipedia two years ago. I don't know how exactly many have been deleted partly because I find it convenient to live edit, and a few times I have deleted by blanking tha page of an article I began to create and thought better of (these showup as a deletions). he most recent deletion that shows up in a search is Basket of deplorables, an article I created only to see it deleted but which was soon recreated by another editor despite which it shows up as a deleted article, as do some other articles such as Kate Prusack (one of several candidate spouse articles that I created during last year's presidential campaign, but that was merged - not deleted, and Nebraska Book Award, which I created for the purpose of redirecting to Nebraska Center for the Book, but which shows up as deleted on the list of articles I have created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A procedural question. This seems to be quite a partisan issue, with opinions more-or-less strictly down partisan lines. I was wondering, is there a procedure for getting more comments on this AfD from the general Wikipedia community outside these two sides? OtterAM (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, and perhaps should be acted on. I insist however that this is not simply a partisan divide. It is true the same people make the same quick articles on incidents of Palestinian terrorism. It is also true that editors here systematically refuse to exploit hundreds of incidents where Palestinians are shot (dead or wounded) by Israeli 'policing actions'. To give one example of dozens, when a grocer Salem Shammaly, was shot dead in front of a video camera, and the clip went viral, and the incident widely reported, neither I nor others who have objected to this article rushed to exploit it. Using E.M. Gregory's methods, to do so would have been easy to cite

the New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald,Daily Mail,Mirror July 22 2014 The Mirror,The Guardian,Vice News,Al Jazeera,New Zealand Herald,Unispal,Newsweek, and even its durability 3 years later in books, i.e.Marouf Hasian Jr.Israel's Military Operations in Gaza: Telegenic Lawfare and Warfare Routledge, 2016 p.16, or other venues, such asTestimony of Eran Efrati that Golani soldiers shot the lad. or Max Blumenthal on Transcript a year later. 'We' don't do this kind of article except when coverage is massive and continued over time. E.M. Gregory starts these articles instantaneously using breaking news. The AfDs may look partisan, but there is a neat divide between the rule-ignoring behavior of those who exploit incidents where Palestinians are culpable of violence, in order to write articles, and the rule-observant behavior of editors who do not write week by week articles of Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians. In short the procedural question requires some administrative oversight on what the fuck do the policies cited for and against actually mean, since numerous editors read them selectively, or cites them without reading them, or construe them in ways antithetical to what other editors take them to mean. I don't think the Shammaly incident merits inclusion, like hundreds of other similar cases, often on video. Stuff like this fails WP:NOTNEWS, however tragic or shocking, but can qualify for a list.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giving as an example the death of young man in the midst of a hot warzone during a very active war is quite different from the homocide of a peaceful woman not in a active warzone, who was clearly targeted (NOT collateral damage, but actual target) while having nothing to do with the conflict. In addition there are allegations that this particulsr viral video is faked / staged.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred during a ceasefire, arranged between the parties. Efrat interviewed the soldiers present when the sniper fired. The video was not faked. The 23 minutes of coverage was handed over to the mainstream newspapers, such as the NYTs, and nothing ever came of the 'allegation' a word always employed exclusively to incidents of filming where it would appear an innocent has been killed by the IDF.Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

short ceasefires are frequently broken - especially when you are talking about a very hot spot which the site of a major battle - Battle of Shuja'iyya. The clip itself went viral for about 2 days. Later mentions were very scant - so there was no reason to investigate beyond the short newscycle ([21]). The killing of young men (of fighting age) is not terribly significant in a warzone in which some 2000+ died - and if it significant for a video of the death itself (which by itself shows little besides the death) - hard to say this is significant. In contrast incidents such as - 2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents which involved children, filming, and continued coverage beyond a 2-3 day news cycle (and minor coverage by Efrat - which isn't exactly RS) - do have articles.Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you did have an article regarding the clip, the subject probably would have to be the clip - as a viral video, and not the shooting of Shammaly (both of these, and together, don't meet notability IMHO. The viral video had a lifespan of less than 3 days, and Shammaly or the killing of Shammaly even less). Some of the coverage didn't even mention Shammaly by name [22].Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The direct answer to your question, OtterAM, is that AfD discussions are advertised quite widely. Every one is listed centrally (in Category:AfD debates and in a subpage of WP:AFD), and most are also advertised to various interest groups. This AfD, for example, has been listed among the deletion discussions related to Israel, crime, terrorism, the UK, and events. If you can think of another list that may be appropriate to notify, please feel free, but please read WP:CANVASS first and be neutral in your invitation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: I did not create this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - additional coverage from 19-20th April - [23][24] fund raising campaign for Bladon family, [25] coverage of warning sent to Bladon of a "killer on the loose" by a friend - after Bladon had been stabbed - and other comments by flatmates (exchange students) in Jerusalem, [26] stabber mentally fit for trial, [27] Coverage in a weekly Hungarian paper.Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ coverage from a christian angle due to Good Friday - [28] from the 18th.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that some of the participants on this page give it a rest? I count about 18 comments from E.M.Gregory, 13 comments from Nishidani and 10 comments from Icewhiz. I think you have all made your points pretty well. From my experience, I can say with a pretty high probability that you're all wasting your breath anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NCRIME per; media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources and WP:Notability per; "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. Just some of the many different available sources; CNN, ABC News which also links to multiple other sources including BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, etc, etc. Many many Israli sources including Times of Israel. All of these have provided more than a simple one paragraph repeat of every other source. There's also more minor mentions like this one in the WashingtonPost. To put this a little further, there's a requirement for reliability which should be self-evidently met, but, look at the sources for yourself. Sources are both secondary and independent of the subject. Now, this gives it presumed notability which is not the same as notability as some would be quick to point out. Because of that, it makes sense to address some of the arguments for deleting the article presented above.
Argument 1 WP:SUSTAINED; That is something of a WP:CRYSTALBALL assumption, but, a credible one. I think it'll last a little bit longer than your "run of the mill" attack given that a British exchange student is the victim and thus forces international coverage. There might be some greater implications than a random stabbing attack on a local would. The same reasoning applies to WP:PERSISTENCE as well. Argument 2 - "likely fails WP:EVENT + + +"; from the guideline itself This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Same crystalballing being applied as the first argument. But, again, the argument to keep is crystalballing in the opposite direction. Argument 3 - WP:GEOSCOPE; obviously does not apply given international coverage due to death of British student. This is not local news, its gone international. Argument 4 - WP:NOTNEWS; ... editors are encouraged ... and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. There's no guideline or policy on what constitutes "significant", but, there are a couple of essays on it that really don't do anything to help (e.g. WP:SIGNIFICANT and WP:CCSI). I think WP:DIVERSE applies here and that it suffices to establish significance per; Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable which of course if this is being reported in Israeli, US, British, Australian and even German sources is more than enough to meet "diverse". These sources aren't just word for word repeats of each other either, but, they do cover the same general gist of what has happened. Argument 5 - An unfortunate bias exists here where any attack on a non-Arab by an Arab is considered notable but, for the most part, it doesn't work the other way around. That is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument of Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. In this case, that is not a credible argument for deleting. Lastly I'll tackle WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS; again, this does not apply. It has nothing to do with; routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Other than that there are quite a few more delete arguments which are "per somebody else".
It makes greater sense to me to look at the WP:MURDEROF essay (even though it's a bit more than just a murder) which links to a variety of guidelines and policies most of which have been mentioned here but only one which I think needs close inspection; "Persistence". I think the strongest argument for delete is WP:PERSISTENCE specifically because; Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. To extend this back to "Murder of", persistence is met if at least some of the following happens; Some factors that may lead to a murder being notable include a large volume of coverage beyond the local area of its occurrence and continuing for a lengthy period of time thereafter, a highly publicized investigation or trial, an article about the case in a magazine long after the case has been closed, coverage on a TV series, a movie or documentary being made about the case, a new forensic technique being used to solve the crime, a law being passed as a result of the crime, or other lasting effects. I've emphasized one point which has already been met. The trial is already being lightly publicized; fit to stand for trial. Whether or not the trial itself gets any attention is a matter for when the trial comes along. It's still in the news cycle and may or may not be as notable in a week, month, or year from now. My feeling on this is that while it won't be a huge deal it already is more than a minor local affair. I think because of this, the article merits inclusion on the encyclopaedia. Side-issue; There is a lot of, to be honest, useless nonsense written above that is entirely distracting from the issue. I have to endorse Kingsidian's comment about "giving it a rest". Mr rnddude (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dang, I couldn't have said that better myself. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. Despite the extensive argument above, this is news. That it gained coverage is no surprise (though a "lightly publicized trail" isn't much), but that this coverage makes it an encyclopedic article, I dispute that. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I am not good at condensing an argument into something short and solid. I always find things to add and expand till eventually it's a solid mass of words arguing part for and part against my position. Well, if it was informative in any way than that's good enough for me. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I respect people who actually do some work round here by actually examining the details, though I disagree with your conclusions. I would note that no article has been done (rightly so, it's not politically sexy enough) on this incident, which I noted while catching up on the backlog. If you examine it, it is identical to the incident in this article up for deletion or otherwise. It received a few news reports in Israel and Palestinian sources, not abroad. The difference is that the incident treated in this article we are discussing affected a foreign woman. The motivation appears to be otherwise identical, an attempt to get killed by killing someone. I agree with Drmies. Both deserve registration in a few lines in the appropriate list, but fail our criteria for durability.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, no apology necessary. Just be glad I didn't write you my essay on NOTNEWS! (It's in heroic couplets.) Drmies (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per arguments made by Shrike, and others.--Jobas (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV. This article is used by some of the more vocal defenders / editors of the article to further an agenda. Notice edits like this from last hour, re-adding "terrorism" wherever possible (including the navbox for "Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2010s", even though this was highly uncertain as a terrorist attack, and not against an Israeli, adding categories like Category:Mass stabbings (as explained multiple times, there was no "mass" stabbing here) and Category:Palestinian terrorism (which seems to be the main reason why this article was created and must be kept separately at all costs). This is a minor incident, probably not an actual terrorist attack but simply a deranged, deluded murder, which gets hyped up to further a political agenda. We shouldn't play along with such games. If it has real, lasting repercussions beyond one very sad death and one trial, it is time to revisit this. Until then, this shouldn't be on enwiki. Fram (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if User:Fram had read the article he would have seen that perp has already undergone psychiatric examination and been judged competent to stand trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fram, you really need to read the article again, and this time more thoroughly. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please both keep your insulting remarks to yourself. Cyrus the Penner, you are the one claiming on the article talk page "Agreed. Mainstream media hasn't exactly been reliable these days, so there should be some reliance on editors' good faith to share more accurate information that is being neglected. ", so I don't think I have to take any lessons from you in how wikipedia should deal with this kind of subject. I'll take my advice from neutral readers and editors, not from partisans like you two. Fram (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jerusalem Light Rail for now. Saw this article referenced on AN/I. At this time I think the attack fails WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. If at some point in the future there are additional attributes that make it worth an article, then it can be revisited. Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Changing to keep on the basis of this Daily Mail article and others that I had not seen when evaluating this article originally. That pushes it into "keep" territory in my opinion due to the political repercussions in Britain from the payment. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose such a merge for 2 reasons. 1.) as I have argued with school shootings, merging places WP:UNDUE emphasis on a single foul incident in an article about a major institution, and 2.)it is not done with attacks on trains/trams in cities worldwide and attacks in Jerusalem should be judged by the same standards we apply to attacks in other cities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would delete, again, without prejudice to the facts ultimately justifying an article. At this point it seems clearly not to be more than a news event, a terror incident in which there were not mass casualties. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Striking out as I've changed my !vote to keep. Coretheapple (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There may have been few casualties in this event, but these kinds of events (no matter what the casualty count is) always find their way back into the news cycle, always whenever a new terror attack occurs and WP:RS brings up previous attacks as a sort of comparison. That on its own implies long-term notability. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: I read the Daily Mail article, and I don't see any political repercussions. Firstly, it cites Palwatch, which is a worthless source. Secondly, even as the Palwatch head says, there is absolutely nothing new in the practice; it is routine. Thirdly, if the UK government actually stops aid to the Palestinian Authority or something, that would meet the criterion of political repercussions. Right now, it's just the Mail bloviating about how UK taxpayer money is funding terrorism (big surprise that the Mail would take this line /sarcasm). Any supposed political repercussions are just WP:CRYSTAL, in my opinion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but then there is 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers which was a nonfatal assault and notable enough for an article, and 2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers, ditto. I read the news every day and I don't even recall those two. Yeah, I know, "other stuff exists," but this shows how we handle such things. And of course, the Taylor Force indicent, 2016 Tel Aviv stabbings. So I think keeping the article would be consistent with this practice, especially given the payment and all that entails. The world will not end with either outcome of this discussion and really wish people would get a grip. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the similarity of the 2016 Minto stabbing attack, also a mentally ill attacker, no casualties.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It clearly meets WP:N/CA and WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 17:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NOTNEWS. Run of the mill terror incident in which one person was killed with a primitive weapon without tangential social impact. Lionized here, as is often the case, because it is an example of Palestinian-on-Israeli violence. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple and Carrite set up standards "run of the mill" and "not mass casualties," but because of the 28 articles listed in Stabbing as a terrorist tactic, only the 2014 Kunming attack seems to have had mass casualties - indeed many of the listed attacks had no casualties except perp - this appears to be a case of editors arbitrarily applying a standard to attacks in Jerusalem that are not applied to attacks elsewhere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLUDGEON, bludgeon, bludgeon, bludgeon, bludgeon, bludgeon, and then clobber some more for good measure. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this AfD has now spawned a copycat AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis with a WP:OTHERSTUFF rationale "wonder why one has a Wikipedia article, why the other one doesn't?"E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTNEWS is a dead letter because WikiNews has flopped. To see a fresh example of this, compare our coverage of the recent Paris shooting with theirs – a bare single sentence. Our core principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR work better than theirs when it comes to digesting the world's news. Such cases are certainly notable and notability does not expire. Our other policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:CENSOR then apply. Andrew D. (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this reasoning. Are we going to create articles on events such as this or this (both comfortably pass WP:GNG criteria)? Wikipedia and Wikinews are fundamentally different projects, and it's not up to one to pick up the slack of the other. Daß Wölf 00:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. No lasting coverage, per WP:NOTNEWS. f e minist 14:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Feminist, I will have to redirect you to the below comment by Icewhiz. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Routine coverage on a routine incident, yawn. f e minist 03:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Continuing on-going coverage from 20th-22nd April - [29] Coverage of salary killer will receive from the Palestinian Authority due to his act of "resistence", [30] - another moment of silence by UK football team. [31] - British hotel turning down screening of a film honoring a Palestinian terrorists following Blandon's murder in a Palestinian terror attack. [32] - Coverage of the Palestinian Authority's attempt to glorify a convicted Palestinian terrorist in London in the wake of the murder of Blandon.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It clearly meets WP:N/CA and WP:GNG - in my experiance, wp:not news is almost never followed here (unless there is a clash with the projects bias) and so needs reviewing, the project is so big now that it is impossible to stop editors reporting what is in the immediate press, the position is there are multiple wp:rs so I can republish it here.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How is the 2017 Jerusalem light rail stabbing more significant than this 2016 fatal stabbing of a British tourist in San Francisco? Jrheller1 (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

due to WP:SIGCOV. Why do news outlets cover terror attacks more than other murders? Perhaps the general public is more concerned with people who are out to kill them to make a point (as issue also with insane mass murderers) - and less concerned with people who have a specific motive to kill a particular person (due to a dispute) or are attempting to commit robbery (usually death avoidable if you fork over your cash). In any event - the terrorist stabbing in Jerusalem, as other terrorist attacks elsewhere, has received very wide coverage - leading to WP:SIGCOV and meeting WP:CRIME. Two UK football clubs have decided to honor the victim with a moment of silence - not done for any random murder victim.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The terrorist attack... The terrorist attack..." you remind us breathlessly, yet it seems every reliable source points to him having mental health and suicide issues. "...psychiatric examiners judged him mentally fit to stand trial." You say "People who are out to kill them to make a point." Yet there's zero evidence of him having any kind of "point". It could still be a notable Insanity defense attack, however. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was coverage of the San Francisco stabbing in LA Times, People magazine, the Guardian, the Independent, Seattle Times, etc. for more than a month. But I doubt that anybody here (including myself) believes the San Francisco stabbing should have its own article. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 07:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bolter and Seraphim, or Merge into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as suggested above. Tragic as this attack is, it's not an event of encyclopedic proportions and doesn't need an article of its own. Yintan 10:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reason this tragic but run-of-the-mill news item has an article is because of where it occurred and the ethnicity of the perpetrator. The bludgeoning of dissenting opinions by some editors here (which I note is amongst the reasons for one of them gaining themselves a topic ban) does not reflect well on the motivations for this article existing. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why one incident garners attention and another does not is irrelevant to judging notability, we follow sources, published articles are the metric by which we gauge notability of recent crimes. In this case, coverage has been intense, international, and ongoing. Today's headlines include "Why a UK woman's murder in Israel should boil your blood and make you rethink foreign aid" [33], & "British Taxpayers to Pay Hannah Bladon’s Killer a Monthly Salary" [34]. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail will use any excuse to print something xenophobic. Otherwise, the incident has largely disappeared from the British national press. It's not a IDONTLIKEIT issue, it's a matter of NOTNEWS - there's nothing here that distinguishes this from hundreds or even thousands of similar incidents - except, as I said, where it happened, which is why it's got an article in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017 (or Merge, I guess, but it looks to be covered there already) - Doesn't look to be lasting significance such that it demands a stand-alone article. The Daily Mail article, which is mentioned above to point to lasting significance, in addition to being our only quasi-"official" unreliable source, is demonstrating unreliability here. To read the story, you would think that the Palestinian Authority looked at this case and said "yes, this guy -- let's give this guy a reward", when in fact it's just a routine gripe about UK foreign aid and a controversial policy of the Palestinian Authority. "...Tamimi or his family qualify for a 'salary' from the PA, according to Itamar Marcus, spokesman for the Israeli monitoring group Palestinian Media Watch. 'According to PA law, everyone who is imprisoned for 'resisting the occupation' receives a PA salary,' he said." In other words, it's a bit of advocacy that could be run as a boilerplate and has nothing to do with developments in this particular example. No objection to this being recreated down the road if it receives lasting coverage, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID. A better approach following WP:PRESERVE is to keep this article and revisit in 6 months or a year. See 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush, Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, Murders of Neta Sorek and Kristine Luken and similar to see the ways in which killings of foreign residents in Palestinian attacks are disproportionately likely to garner ongoing attention in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID is not a temporary shield from standard policies and guidelines, as it is most often invoked to be when linked at AfD. Don't rush to delete articles and don't rush to create articles (often, there's only an opportunity for WP:RAPID to be argued at AfD when someone has ignored the rest of the page that section is taken from). Sometimes it makes sense to delete, sometimes it makes sense not to create. Unfortunately (but not actually unfortunate, of course) there's no long process like this for creating an article, weighing arguments about whether someone is creating something too early. There's nothing preventing those who wish to create the article from also revisiting in 6 months or a year. Certainly not opposed to userfying to make that easier. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to at least consider whether this article is being judged by different standards than those used with regard to similar articles in other countries, such as Munich knife attack, Reutlingen knife attack, 2016 Würzburg train attack, 2015 Leytonstone tube station attack, 2016 Hamburg stabbing attack or 2016 Russell Square stabbing. Attacks in Jerusalem should be evaluated by the same standards as attacks in any other city.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are all mass or multiple stabbings, not similar to a psychiatric patient suddenly turning on a woman next to him and stabbing her, and apologizing to the family (and no doubt contradicting himself). Jerusalem has nothing to do with it: his ethnicity is the reason this has been made into an article.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I again suggest to you that you read the links before making grand, sweeping and inaccurate assertions. Although the main point is that coverage suffices to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was inclined to agree with Nishidani until I noticed that there are non-fatal stabbings in Europe that resulted in Wikipedia articles. I might add that the ones I checked were not subject to deletion discussions like this one, which leads me to believe that POV issues perhaps exist on both sides. (surprise surprise) Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never disguised my POV in this area, Core. But it would be extremely easy for me to write up, on E.M.Gregory's principles, a hundred short articles of Palestinians killed without justification (according to Human Rights Watch, B'tselem, Amnesty International, and other reputable NGOs) so that, by links, and cats, one could cram Wikipedia with that POV. I've done only one article like this, Zion Square assault, and began it 12 days after the incident, when it was apparent that the incident was assuming a notable dimension in global newspaper accounts. Whatever influence I have has been expended repeatedly in reminding editors identified as being sympathetic to Palestinians as well, not to imitate this execrable practice. Even User:Sepsis II whose editing partisanship worried me at times, waited 17 days before starting Beitunia killings, though I had been mulling the propriety of doing it myself since it was an egregious example of IDF murder, but was more conservative in thinking of the appropriate time to write up the material.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Then by all means write those hundred articles. The absence of articles on similar attacks is not the strongest possible argument for deleting this one. Coretheapple (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Life's too brief. There's far too much serious encyclopedic work to be done on the passing away of thousands of peoples and their distinctive cultures to allow oneself to play games on stacking this place with quickie one-off articles that can be summed up in a few lines. I refuse to be sucked into imitating erratic or negative behavior just to 'get even'. It takes the same amount of time to write an article on an extinct Aboriginal people as to write one on some single event of modern terrorism, and it is indicative of our times that we get the horn over, treat as spectacular, single events of violence, while your average American, Canadian, South American or Australian can't even recall the names of whole ethnic groups wiped out or rendered extinct by land-grabbing attrition, usually on the land their suburbs and farms are built on. Statistically it is far more dangerous to get into your car and go driving than to walk the streets of cities, like Paris, afflicted by incidents of terrorism. France wiped out a third of the population of Algeria in 40 years; Italy was the first country, in 1911, to douse poison gas on a native population in Libya wiping out whole tribes (a practice endorsed by Churchill in 1925: the British used it in Iraq in 1919) but no one remembers that 'stuff'. But they will tend to think, thanks to Wikipedia's activism on behalf of tabloids, that several incidents each year 'demonstrate' the undying enmity of the 'Arabs' against 'white' civilization. We must focus on, as one editor said here, the 'truth' of their religious hatred.Nishidani (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to you personally. My point is that if there is an imbalance or a double standard, then simply fix it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that non-fatal (except perp) stabbing attacks such as 2016 Ohio machete attack, 2014 Queens hatchet attack, 2015 University of California, Merced stabbing attack were not nominated for deletion is indeed part of what makes it appear that attacks in Israel/Palestinian territories/Jerusalem are held to different standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, don't you think that 37 comments from you in this AfD are quite enough? From where I sit, this WP:BLUDGEONING has gone from annoying to downright abusive. Would you please stop?- Mr X 18:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have it both ways - you've used OTHERSTUFF to oppose someone's comment above but here you're using it yourself! Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to at least consider whether this article is being judged by different standards - I would say that this question would only be relevant if those also went to AfD and the same editors opined in a clearly different way. I've only gone through the first two on the list, which do not look to have gone to AfD, and which likely should go to AfD. Neither the Munich nor Reutlingen articles contain any indication of lasting coverage whatsoever. Brief mentions in lists, the obvious update upon sentencing, and that's it. All of the citations otherwise come from within a week of the event. Perhaps the reason it's easier to form an opinion on this one is that there is an obvious merge target (though there may be for the others, too -- I haven't looked yet). If you think that I have different standards or that another editor exhibits different standards for evaluating notability, it may be worth bringing up, but as this stands, it's a textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Responding to the direction of this sub-thread since E.M.Greegory's initial question, I don't know why fatal/non-fatal, multiple/single distinctions matter in terms of evaluating notability, aside from to say that they are indications of the only thing that actually matters -- that the events receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject over a period of time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like similar events in this area of the world, it does receive extensive and continuing coverage. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability criteria, has sufficient references, potential to develop more fully exists. I do not see the argument to delete, except an ideological one - which should not be the basis for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly passes notability. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a high standard for WP:NCRIME because it must meet WP:RS requirements including WP:NEWSORGS - since this article has liberally cited multiple sources for a single article (which should be treated as one source) - a careful examination of the sources may prove that this article does not have sufficient references. I have cleaned out the obvious ones, but there may be more. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the regrettable frequency with which this kind of terrorist attack occurs in Israel, I don't think it is useful to have a separate article on every single such event. I think it is better to have an article on this kind of event as a category, which can list individual events such as this one. While there will inevitably be enough media coverage to build an article on every single such event, it is somewhat akin to having an article on every single murder, which isn't really encyclopaedic. Terrorist attacks generally stand out from your average murder due to their rarity and their individual impact on the public consciousness – the sad fact is that this sort of terrorist attack has become common enough in Israel that I don't think that is true any more for these attacks individually, although it is of course still true of the terroristic pattern of which they form a part, so have an article on the pattern/category instead of the instances. SJK (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SJK and others who make this argument fail to respond to the question that I raise above, a question that has caused at least one editor to change his iVote from Delete to Keep: Since it is the case that in instances where ongoing, widespread, in-depth sources exist, terrorist attacks (including terrorism-related attacks in which no one or no one except perp was killed,) and stabbing attacks (including not only stabbing attacks in which perp is under treatment for mental instability and high-profile stabbing attacks that prove to be free of ideological motivation) are kept, even in countries like France, Germany, Belgium, the U.S. and Australia where such attacks can be described as "common," (Category:Stabbing attacks) in iVoting to delete this article are editors inadvertently treating events in the Jewish differently from Wikipedia's treatment of events in other countries?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I think a number of articles in that category probably need to be deleted and/or merged. If you want to AFD some of them I'd probably support you. (For example, I don't think 2017 Queanbeyan stabbing attacks is an event of lasting significance and probably should be merged into List of terrorist incidents in Australia.) So, no, I don't think I personally am applying a different standard to Israel-related articles than to those about other countries. (I'm not going to speculate on the motivations of other !voters because speculating about the motivations of other people is rarely helpful.) SJK (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not speak about motivation, not yours, not anyone's.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic bickering unrelated to the AfD

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Just a minor point: despite repeated attempts by editors to insert cats stating that this 'occurred in Israel', it took place in territory where Israel is technically in international law a 'belligerent occupying power'. This does not exculpate murderers, of course, nor mitigate the gravity of the crime.Nishidani (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please...--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since despite East Jerusalem being distinct from the rest of the west bank (in being annexed), the stabbing occurred in West Jerusalem held since 1948 - in "IDF square Jerusalem"[35] - which as-per google-maps [36] is very close to the pre-1967 border - but definitely on the pre-war Israeli side and not even in a no-man's land (the "green line" isn't really a line, but two parallel lines in many places).Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to be nit-picky - the national park portion of Allenby Square is mostly in former no-man's land, but the train line and stations are clearl not.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys cite Wikipedia articles to challenge what I say, at least read them. 'Israel's claim of sovereignty over West Jerusalem is considered to be stronger than its claim over East Jerusalem'.West Jerusalem. A claim of sovereignty means it is contested. In international law, whatever the de facto situation, it remains a corpus separatum. This is really basic knowledge, that all editors should be familiar with in the I/P areaNishidani (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While corpus separatum is relevant to west Jerusalem (and likewise - eastern Jerusalem vs. any Palestinian claim) - this is a rather dead in the water claim. Israel, regardless of this claim, is definitely not a 'belligerent occupying power' (in contrast to the 1967 areas) - as no such international body was ever founded. The corpus claim is fairly similar in strength (though marginally stronger) in relation to any 1948 area outside of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - of which there is quite a bit. Had your original statement had been about Eastern Jerusalem - it would have had some basis (even though less than areas over which israel didn't asset sovereignty)Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot use sources, please desist from opinionizing. Allenby Square came under Israeli control in 1967. Allenby Square did not form part of Israel 1949-1967. It was taken in the Six days War.

Unlike yourself, I provided a source. Google maps on idf square jerusalem clearly show the railway outside of the no man's land.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if map reading is not enough as per PRIMARY, see the secondary geo-location (map widget on the right of the page) as per B'Tselem -.^[1] You may be confused as the Allenby monument (to the south and east of the rail-line - in a small park between the road/rail and the wall of the old city) - is in no-man's land (which, should be noted, is a different status than what is east of the no-man's land. Belligerent occupation of no-man's land isn't a strong claim). The light rail line does cross the green line - but that is farther down the line [37] - around ammunition hill it is clearly across (before - it does go into no-man's land - but that is after IDF square). I'm not sure if b'tselem's geo-location is 100% accurate in terms of pin-pointing the exact spot on the line where this happend, but as the rail line itself is to the north and west of the no-man's land strip in this zone (from a bit after the damascus gate stop (which in no-man's land, but not across the no-man's land strip)) - it really isn't an issue. To summarize - the attacker boarded in the Damascus Gate station (which is to the north-west of the gate itself) which is no-man's land, on a westward bound train crossing across the western side of no-man's land after approx. 200m, and from that spot onward the rail (including the spot given in various sources as IDF square) is west of the no-man's land strip. B'Tselem supports this reading (as evidences by their geo-location)- and this is an anti-occupation movement.

Note ongoing British news coverage as new issue emerges in this case."May urged to secure pledge from PA over Bladon murder", The Jewish Chronicle, Lee Harpin (news article), 25 April 2017. [38] The story deals with a request by the Labour Friends of Israel asking Theresa May to insure that no British Foreign Aid funds go as a Palestinian Authority monthly stipend to the attacker who killed British citizen Hannah Bladon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roni Khan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Short, promotional CV (resumé) of a person who fails notability criteria. The article makes no credible claims to importance or significance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per arguments made by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง.--Jobas (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woh Aik Pal[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that fails to assert notability of the subject. The only external source is a generic link to hum.tv, which does not seem to show this program. The only other source that I could find was a single article that mentions the program in one paragraph.[39] That's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. AussieLegend (✉) 20:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 14 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Hayes[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Kurykh (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are claims here that could get him a Wikipedia article if it were significantly better sourced than this, but as written this article is based far too strongly on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and not nearly enough to reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Brouillet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BASIC. Kurykh (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a continually trounced candidate for a minor party. The article is border-line promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable political candidate and conspiracy theorist. AusLondonder (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is mostly local in nature and/or just a passing mention. typical stuff for a minor-party candidate. nothing notable.Glendoremus (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsuccessful candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates — if you cannot show and properly source that she already cleared another notability criterion for another reason, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable because election per se. But this is based almost entirely on primary sources, but for a small smattering of purely local and WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage of the depth and breadth that every unelected candidate for any office could always show — so nothing here demonstrates preexisting notability for other things, and nothing here shows her candidacies to be more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Wilson (YouTube)[edit]

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

Wholly unreferenced biography. Previous PROD immediately removed by author with no improvement. No evidence of any notability - just another YouTube contributor. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A source was added after the PROD removal and appears unreliable that fails GNG and BIO overall. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the WP:GNG. Seems to be a long novelization of a bunch of non-notable drama related to a bunch of youtubers. Sourced entirely be unreliable sources, most of them first party accounts YouTube videos. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Honeini[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in a league listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues nor has he played in an international match. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, or even that this player exists. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of GNG, potentially a hoax Spiderone 08:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:50, 20 April 2017 (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 Elk Grove, California. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elk Grove Police Department[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. There is no inherent notability for city government departments. Less so for ones only 11 years old. John from Idegon (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Elk Grove, California. Does not meet notability standards for an organization.Glendoremus (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Elk Grove, California. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Berryhill[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. The last AfD was over six years ago when his unsuccessful campaign for elected office was going on, but Wikipedia standards have tightened and the subject has not done anything that would make him notable under our current standards. Kurykh (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional article on an entirely non-notable candidate for office whose main claims to fame seems to be that his cousins hold elected office and he is a member of the "Turlock Irrigation District Board" AusLondonder (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2010 there was still some support (albeit wobbly support, as note the fact that the first discussion closed no consensus rather than as a clear keep) for the notion that unelected candidates in US congressional elections were notable enough for articles on that basis in and of itself. But that's since been much more cleanly discounted, so that non-winning candidates for political office are considered notable only if (a) they can be shown and properly sourced as having already cleared a notability criterion for some other reason before running as candidates, or (b) there's a WP:GNG slamdunk because the campaign coverage exploded into something resembling the firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell. Neither of those conditions has been satisfied here, however; the strongest claim of notability is serving on a local infrastructure board, which is not an NPOL pass, and the referencing is a mix of primary sources, purely routine local coverage of the type that any candidate for any office could always show, and a glancing namecheck of his existence in a source that isn't about him. This is nowhere close to what it takes to make a candidate notable because candidate. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2017 (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 United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018#District 49. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Applegate (California politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Online sources all relate to his unsuccessful bid for Congress last year and his current campaign for the same office in 2018 (which is insufficient to demonstrate notability). Kurykh (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018#District 49 or delete. I agree he doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN as of now, but he could be a search term for someone interested in the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018#District 49 or delete. Non-winning candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles because candidate, in and of itself — to get him into Wikipedia, you would need to show and reliably source that either (a) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, or (b) the campaign coverage exploded wildly out of proportion to the volume that every candidate in any election could always show (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those things is being demonstrated here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018#District 49 per Bearcat's remark above. I encourage the merge to include the information from the article as I believe it is informative, even if it fails notability. MPEN320 (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2017 (CST)
Delete defeated US house candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the word "inherently," JPL... Losing candidates CAN be notable if there is sufficient auxiliary material to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding precedent that run of the mill losing candidates for high office, even those of major parties, even those who almost won, are presumed non-notable unless sufficient additional sourcing beyond that generated by the campaign itself can be provided. I don't like this consensus, we're supposed to be the sum of human knowledge blah blah blah, but I recognize it. Carrite (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Tim Gavin[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:CLERGY. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to delete. Does not meet Notability - needs significant coverage in a reliable source. No sources used in article. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; he was ordained only four years ago. Also, this is a completely uncited BLP, and will likely fail WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although this is not "too soon". This is he is a non-notable school chaplain, and not even on a course that would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a run-of-the-mill clergyman. Could well be speedy delete under A7. St Anselm (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shibi Joseph[edit]

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

The article is about a volleyball player who was on her national team (India) but never played at the Olympics, nor at the Worold Championship, which is the highest level of competition in her sport. This, she fails WP:NSPORT. The sources merely confirm that she exists, and do not describe her in any detail. Thus, she fails WP:GNG as well. Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CA7M L3X1 (distant write) 21:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Vale[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BAND. scope_creep (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertorially toned BLP of a musician who has yet to release even his debut recording, and is not yet the subject of enough reliable source coverage even to meet WP:NMUSIC #1 (which is basically just "meets WP:GNG", and is thus the easiest criterion for a musician to pass.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when actually accomplishes something that would get him over an NMUSIC criterion — charting, getting airplay on CBC Radio 2, garnering a Polaris Music Prize or Juno Award nomination, etc. — but Wikipedia is not a free publicity database, and musicians are not automatically entitled to have EPK-type profiles on here just because they exist. And for added bonus, the article was created by a user named "Maisonnette Music": see "labels" field in the infobox, and insert conflict of interest here. I'm definitely intrigued by the Tom Waits and Leonard Cohen comparisons, and will certainly take the opportunity to check him out if and when the album is up somewhere I can stream it, but it takes more than "he exists" to get a musician into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. Badly fails MUSICBIO and WP:BLP. The article is also so poorly written as to demand a re-write. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Media Forum[edit]

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

Non-notable conference, only saw three hits on Google news, one appeared to be an Op Ed. Nothing from a search on the Russian Wikipedia South Nashua (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yugyeom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, not notable outside of group for anything, page was once already deleted and now re-created by a single-purpose fan account. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability outside of group. As an individual, does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no notability as a solo. --ChoHyeri (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the group to prevent recreation. KaisaL (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Oaks Mall riot[edit]

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

Declined prod. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events); no enduring significance or in-depth news coverage. Sources are limited to "police blotter/breaking news" type copy; there are, for instance, no feature stories or analyses, wider reactions, etc. There were just two arrests and no deaths or injuries. As an alternative, we could merge into West Oaks Mall (Ocoee, Florida). Neutrality^talk 17:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to West Oaks Mall (Ocoee, Florida). Doesn't seem to meet WP:NEVENTS, but still seems worth mentioning in a section on the mall page. bojo | talk 18:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- Nothing to merge to West Oaks Mall (Ocoee, Florida) really; a First world problem, that's all, and an event of local, passing interest. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing about that riot suggests it is anything notable, or even related to anything notable. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. I hear a racial dogwhistle, it should additionally be noted. Carrite (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Properties[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only sourced to republished press releases. Article apparently written by a paid consultant. jps (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial coverage in reliable sources, does not meet notability guidelines. Page was tagged by me as possibly not notable a year ago and nothing has been located in that time. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Cunningham (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page for just two people. Per WP:TWODABS, all we really need here is a hatnote from the undisambiguated title to the disambiguated one -- we don't need a third disambiguation page on top of that. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete, I agree with the comments made by Bearcat. MartinJones (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with me, then why are you stating keep instead of delete? Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for causing confusion and have struck out my silly error (Bearcat, Oculi, bojo1498). This is clearly unnecessary, as demonstrated in the link given above. It is best for a reader who ends up as the main page to see a hatnote to the other article, rather than click on a disambiguation page and click again to the article. I can see no benefits to going round the houses. MartinJones (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I disagree with Bearcat and agree with MartinJones. I created this but am perfectly happy to learn that 2 people do not justify a dab page. Oculi (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification It would appear that both other commenters support getting rid of the DAB. I'm not certain why Oculi said they disagreed with MartinJones but disagreed with bearcat when they said they agree with Bearcat (while confusingly voting keep). Hopefully these editors can clarify their positions. bojo | talk 19:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TWODABS. I've bypassed the dab with a hatnote so it's now useless as a navigational aid. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TWODABS. Boleyn (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Beltran[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLPFRINGE in the sense that no one outside of the community of psychic believers has noticed this person. jps (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So, being featured on a gift certificate in the Hollywood Swag Bags doesn't count as notability? I'll have to remember that. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not sure that just being noticed by a single group with an interest in the subject should not count as notability. But the lack of RS in general (I am not finding any that I think count as RS) makes this a dubious inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E'mund Duke Mareno[edit]

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

I've been unable to find any coverage whatsoever of the subject in reliable sources so WP:NMUSIC is not met. SmartSE (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only poor quality sources available. Nothing noteworthy on news database. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Does not otherwise meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Sigauke[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 14 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brass (company)[edit]

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

I can see no evidence of notability here. Most of the refs are niche publications in the advertising industry just noting its existence. The BBC ref is simply about the UK Budget and not about Brass. The rest are just recording the facts about the nativity of Brass and its cost cutting. Nothing there to indicate notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam, which, in a new twist, attempts to inherit notability from the building the company is located in:

"Brass is based in Moorfield House, Headingley, Leeds, which is a Grade II listed building in the Headingley Conservation Area. The listing describes the building as being “in Tudor Gothic Revival Style".

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of football stadiums in the Philippines[edit]

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

Does this subject deserve its own list? Mr. Guye (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Thanks for asking. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:15, 14 April 2017 (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 and redirect to Buttocks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side Butt[edit]

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

I thought initially if "side boob" had it's own page, this may be notable enough for it's own wp page. Then I clicked on "side boob" on the page and it was a redirect to "Cleavage." If side boob isn't relevant enough for it's own page, I don't think we can make the jump to side butt having its own page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect with Buttocks. I don't find that this falls into the realm of notability on it's own but(t) it is an aspect/point of view for ones buttocks. - Pmedema (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect with Buttocks. Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant own separate article. bojo | talk 15:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this topic. People looking this up in an encyclopaedia are in the wrong place. MartinJones (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, anyone who follows social trend in tabloids will notice that this is an increasing trend among celebrities. As such believe that since fashion trends are interesting we should cover it. Since the trend is also relatively recent I predict we will start seeing more high quality sources beginning to cover this as well as reliable publishers. We already several analogous articles such as Buttock cleavage. As a sidenote, even if sources do not use the term it would still be notable since we are currently living in a climate of increased controversy surround clothing and appropriate attire, plus the aticlecould also be expanded beyond the current focus on fashion towards a focus on the specific anatomy of that region, which currently lacks a corresponding article. As such, why would important social discourse (or for that matter missing anatomical pages) remain blank on the world largest encyclopedia? Wishhunniezulliej (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gossip magazines/columns/tabloids are not reliable sources and so don't contribute to the subject's notability. That looks to be all we have here, along with a listicle on the Cosmo website. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NEO. I don't think there's enough to merge into buttocks, where it would be WP:UNDUE weight to include (i.e. there is a ton of reliable source coverage of the subject 'buttocks', and almost nothing about this). If it's not in that article, it doesn't make sense to redirect. Maybe it will be notable in the future, but it doesn't look to be now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:24, 16 April 2017 (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. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMore[edit]

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

totally unable to find RS which give notability, overall this just seems like advertising or gaining credibility with a link from WP. WP:NOTADVERTISING WP:WEBCRIT JMWt (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: one final relisting to try to get some opinions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 15:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hard to find any sources to show notability. Can't really find reliable sources that even mention them. bojo | talk 15:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Promo article, RS, GNG L3X1 (distant write) 23:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple community#iMore as that is a plausible redirect. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:19, 21 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard "Doc" Ayers[edit]

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

I do not see how this meets the NSPORTS standard for coaches. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe Weak Keep looks like he meets WP:NHSPHSATH. See [40][41][42][43][44][45][46]--Jahaza (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak, weak keep. He gets some text in several books, plus he was inducted into the Georgia Sports Hall of Fame. Unnotable as an athlete, though, so NHSPHSATH doesn't apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a bit of a mess, but that's not a reason for deleting. Ayers was a high school football coach for 34 years, but high school football coaches rarely satisfy notability standards. Ayers was also an assistant coach (freshman coach and then administrative assistant to the head coach) for the Georgia Bulldogs football team from 1964 to 1981. (In an embarrassing chapter, he was arrested for scalping tickets several months after retiring. See here.) Assistant coaches do not get a pass under WP:NCOLLATH and are judged under the standards of WP:GNG. Here, there has been some significant coverage of Ayers in independent, reliable sources, e.g., (1) here, and (2) here; (3) here; and (4) here; (5) here; (6) here; and (7) here. See also (8) here; (9) here; (10) here; (11) here; and (12) here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Daymond[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a record producer, with no strong reliable source coverage to carry his notability per WP:NMUSIC. The only sources here are a glancing namecheck of his existence in the very last paragraph of a Billboard article about something else, and a profile in a music directory which contains no actual content to verify anything claimed in this article -- literally all it confirms is his name. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to an article just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion is claimed -- he gets one when the claim of notability is verified by enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username was "Riprock22" and the subject's production moniker is Riprock. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Bearcat identifies, whilst there are claims made in the article which may meet WP:NMUSIC, there is minimal coverage in the sources which I can find to support these claims. As it stands, unless someone else can come up with some better sources than I can, it does not meet WP:NMUSIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea England[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. The strongest things here are winning or being nominated for music awards that are not "major" enough to satisfy NMUSIC #8, and charting on a digital radio service's non-IFPI-certified single-network bad chart. And except for a single deadlink of one CD review in a magazine, the referencing here is entirely to primary sources, blogs and simple directories that cannot assist notability at all. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists; reliable source coverage must support a notability claim that satisfies NMUSIC for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 14 April 2017 (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 and redirect to Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah Bridge. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jambatan Kedua Sdn Bhd[edit]

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of Jambatan Kedua Sdn Bhd. Its only reference is the company's official web site, whereas notability for Wikipedia requires coverage in independent reliable sources. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, with reversion of promotional edits back to a redirect. AfD fails WP:BEFORE as nom has apparently failed to check history. Courtesy ping of nominator: Teblick Nördic Nightfury 10:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sufficient to reference it on Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah Bridge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- notability is not inherited from the notable project, the Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah Bridge. There's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glen L. Roberts[edit]

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

Highly promotional article probably written by Roberts himself. It would need a major re-writing. WP:TNT is a better idea IMHO. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This article is built around primary documents, not secondary documents showing notability as is required of encyclopedia articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bush[edit]

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

The only sources cited are some articles he's written, his social media pages, and a press release saying he'd been hired. No reliable sources to back up why this person is notable. Werónika (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly prominent political commentator - needs work but not deletion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%, the article needs "some" work but should be retained. (talk) Quetzal1964 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% also: article thin in current state, but individual is notable. (talk) Da-rb 02:19, 04 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability should be demonstrated, not simply remarked upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons given by the nominator. Wikipedia isn't a directory of magazine journalists. Admittedly Bush is featured in a few paragraphs of an article in The Guardian but, as far as coverage goes about him, I can't see anything else. Failes WP:GNG.

P.S. I'm wondering whether the 3 !votes above are by the same person, particularly the almost identical phrasing and formatting! Sionk (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I only voted once. Quetzal1964 14:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC) (talk)

Keep, ‎The work of Quetzal1964 this afternoon demonstrates that should Stephen Bush's article be deleted, it will probably need to be recreated in the not too distant future. Philip Cross (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how Quetzal's additions have improved anything. One source is from Bush's employer, The Spectator. The other is cited to Bush's own cookery article. Neither are independent. Sionk (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bush is employed by the New Statesman, a left of centre political weekly, The Spectator is a right of centre political magazine which I don't think he has worked for. Quetzal1964 19:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. But one line in a blog article doesn't change things greatly. Sionk (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm my own person. I think Philip Cross might have hit the nail on the head in saying it'll be recreated: while Wikipedia isn't a directory of magazine journalists, he's "special correspondant" for the New Statesman, the main left of centre weekly in the UK and seems to write circa 7-10 articles weekly for the online (link: http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/stephen_bush) and 1-2 articles for the press edition; hosts the podcast, and for a UK political journalist has a large-ish following on Twitter: in UK political journalism, he's relatively the same prominence in the UK as Helen Lewis (journalist) and is either going to go the way of Mehdi Hasan or Laurie Penny or fade into obscurity. He's not a WP:BIO1E type thing: just several very moderately notable ones in a niche area. Da-rb (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which was a way of me saying Keep, by the way. Da-rb (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what journalists do for their job, they write news/opinion articles. It's not a qualifying crieria for WP:GNG. There seem to be lots of soothsayers here, predicting this journalist is going to be notable in the future. But it clearly implies he isn't at the moment. Sionk (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because Wikipedia is not a directory and the subject does not meet general notability guidelines. There is a difference between a journalist and say, Christopher Hitchens. --Rhombus (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he is notable, not in the same league as Mr Hitchens but still is reasonably well known in the UK as a political journalist who is likely to have a long career. In any case there are now enough independent sources cited to establish notability (BBC, The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Spectator) so does meet notability guidelines. Quetzal1964 14:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, despite sock puppetry claim to the contrary. Ifnord (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may well merely be WP:TOOSOON, may even be true that there will soon be enough significant, non-primary sources to support an article. At present, there are not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above, and will probably throw in relevance of peers George Eaton and Helen Lewis as they're of equal status (or not so as this case may be); but would probably agree with E.M.Gregory for WP:TOOSOON being cited as a good reason, rather than straight up non-notable. Da-rb (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: naiveity on my part: as this is the first one of these I've been involved in. This as been relisted a few times now, and is probably under the wrong category now (Author related, rather than journalism related). When does this get decided upon? Da-rb (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Da-rb Editors are free, encouraged actually, to add appropriate categories. If you scroll up, you'll see that this is already listed under journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 11:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - User:Da-rb has now 'voted' three times. Sionk (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2017 (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. Not notable independently of his foundation. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Verma (social activist)[edit]

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

Non-Notable Person. Has not won any awards and most of the sources merely just mention his name. Uncletomwood (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- His PILs had generated a storm of debates in India(As a resident of India I say this).The persons may not be notable himself but his actions certainly are notable as they have affected the Indian education system WIZRADICAL (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Uday Foundation, an article about his company - because that's what most of the references in his article are actually about. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After much thought it seems like Exemplo347 is right merge the article to Uday Foundation WIZRADICAL (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning awards should not be criteria of notability. Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi never won any padma award but straight away won Nobel peace price . I feel this page should not be deleted or merged with any other page. Some people prefer to speak though their work and you should recognise the same . He is also a writer with various published articles ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] Thanks Shibanihk (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Palestinian stabs British national to death in Jerusalem, B'Tselem, April 2017 - (geolocation on map widget on the right of the page)
^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toireporter/author-Rahul-Verma.cms
^ http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/author/rahulverma/
^ http://www.ndtv.com/author/rahul-verma

Merge--into Uday Foundation.Winged Blades^Godric 13:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are more articles which supports his work ^[1] ^[2]^[3]^[4] Some PILs or RTIs are either filed by the name of individuals or in name of non profit but lets accept that small grassroot organizations have very limited resource it is ultimately the work of founder only and also they do not get engaged in any paid news or self glorification.Shibanihk (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)You only get one !vote. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.thebetterindia.com/80335/uday-foundation-delhi-congenital-defects/
^ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/our-names-may-not-be-khan/2/101119.html
^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/08/20/indian-drug-tests-under-investigation-after-4-babies-die.html
^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai/condom-vending-machines-in-public-places-not-a-hit-in-city/story-UDUJ5bSllRF8gcLvxfLpUL.html

None of these articles are about him - they're about his foundation. A merge is the only appropriate course of action here. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you read it carefully, articles are about his contribution towards the foundation & selfless work for the society :- Ref 1: " Rahul decided to start the Uday Foundation in honour of his son to provide quality healthcare for the underprivileged, especially the children." "Rahul says that it is always tough trying to strike a balance in life, especially when one has a sick child at home, but says that the family of four (they have a daughter as well) is well up for the challenges. Once again, he comes back to empathy. “We must sensitise our society better. "

Ref 2: story of "his" son who was born with birth defects and inspired him to start this foundation"

Ref3: Rahul Verma, of the Uday Foundation for Congenital Defects and Rare Blood Groups, which exposed the AIIMS deaths after a request under freedom of information laws, said: “If you are rich in this country you go to a private doctor. You certainly don’t put your child up to be experimented on.”

Ref4: Rahul Verma, a Delhi-based activist and founder of non-governmental organisation Uday Foundation for Congenital Defects, had filed the RTI with National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO). Also please check these links about "his" article as writer ^[1]^[2] Shibanihk (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read this ^[3]^[4] and ^[5] Understand the depth of writing, and what he is doing. He deserves to be on Wikipedia. HelloDolly89 (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toireporter/author-Rahul-Verma.cms
^ http://www.ndtv.com/author/rahul-verma?site=classic
^ http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/voices/story-of-an-invisible-ews-student-you-see-every-day/
^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Maam-may-I-go-to-the-toilet-please/articleshow/46595768.cms
^ https://thelogicalindian.com/my-social-responsibility/my-story-junk-food-free-schools/

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability requirements. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no notability except with respect to the foundation. One article is sufficient. Two articles for relatively minor figures of this sort normally indicates an attempt to get as many articles as possible, otherwise known as promotionalism . We shuld not be encouraging it. There is a type of publication that does include accouts about people which are designed for emotional impact--tabloids, but we're NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Emotional impact tabloid??? Well, if it's time to disparage someone working on grass-root. I rest my case.. Shibanihk (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already mentioned at Uday Foundation; no independent notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per nom and DGG. Ifnord (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noh Sang-min[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason.

Note: This page may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G5 as the creator of the article is the subject of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 00:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't play in a notable league and no source to show that he actually even played for Yongin City FC or his Cambodian club. Fails WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luv Israni[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for artists; further, notability is not inherited because this person worked with notable people. I could only find passing mentions of this individual, and not the in depth coverage needed. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also should be noted that this article had previously been a draft at Draft:Luv Israni, but was deleted about 4 days ago as abandoned. बहिर्जी नाईक was not the account that created the draft, yet both versions contain ridiculous language about the subjecting having "a keen eye for directing"[47][48] (only admins will be able to see the deleted article). I suspect paid editing here, or COI, given that the creator of this article also took a stab at an article on Megha Israni, again with promotional language and insufficient establishment of notability. As for Luv, even running his name through the Indian newspaper custom search I don't find sufficient articles to warrant a unique article. I see this, which is a passing mention and this, another passing mention, and this, which is an interview (and thus insufficient for notability as WP:PRIMARY). The guy probably has lots of credits and may be well-known in the industry, but there is a lack of substantive independent coverage. Even the article creator had trouble finding references as noted in the contested speedy-deletion nomination. So I think delete, since I don't see where we could intuitively redirect. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - subject does not pass notability, and as mentioned above, notability is not inherited. Netherzone (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2017 (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. Consensus herein is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akinyele Umoja[edit]

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

Non-notable educator tagged since August 2008. I do not see how .edu sites such as [49], and blogs could establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've nosed about Google some and I'm still undecided. I had trouble finding any news articles focused predominantly on him, although he is regularly mentioned in impressive contexts. He gets very nice coverage in three paragraphs in this article, which is a start at the least. But if good reviews of his work come out, or if enough citations can be gathered per WP:ACADEMIC, I might lean towards keep. ACADEMIC doesn't need the same type of coverage as GNG, so that allows some leeway in interpretation of sources. Yvarta (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:AUTHOR; multiple non trivial reviews & holdings: WorldCat Identities. Sample reviews:

We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement.. By Hughett, Amanda. Journal of African American History, Jan 01, 2016; Vol. 101, No. 1/2, p. 201-204

Umoja, Akinyele Omowale We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement New York: New York University Press 351 pp., $40.00, ... By Gritter, Elizabeth. History: Reviews of New Books, Jan 01, 2016; Vol. 44, No. 1, p. 5

FREEDOM AND FIREPOWER. By Morgan Ward, Jason. Reviews in American History, Jun 01, 2014; Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 341-345. A review of the book "We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom ... mor

We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement. By Briley, Ron;McCutcheon, Camille. Journal of American Culture, Jun 01, 2014; Vol. 37, No. 2, p. 267-268

Akinyele Omowale Umoja. We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement. By Strain, Christopher. American Historical Review, Feb 01, 2014; Vol. 119, No. 1, p. 207-208
Review: ‘We Will Shoot Back’, The Clarion-Ledger

Overall, seems an important figure in African-American studies, see for example: History conference speaker says 1965 boycott became model for state".

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yvarta: I've provided some reviews above. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Good research, I'm adding it to a Further reading section on the page. Yvarta (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per research and analysis by K.e.coffman, looks sufficient to my eyes as well. Yvarta (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The citation count, etc., is not enough for notability as an academic, but K.e.coffman found several scholarly reviews of his works, and this makes him borderline notable in light of PROF/AUTHOR policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 18 April 2017 (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 David Ruff. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Print Workshop[edit]

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

Non-notable shop which existed for four years. This is actually not really about David Ruff's workshop at all; about one paragraph, it seems, is actually about the shop- the rest is about Ruff, his works, his friends, and the works they illustrated. Notability, of course, is not inherited; and there are insufficient sources to suggest that the shop has any independent notabilty. There is little coverage with either WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE, most of the mentions being passing. A possible option, of course, is redirect / merge to David Ruff. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article about David Ruff. I agree--this is actually about Ruff, not the print shop. In fact it's actually a better article than the original about him. Print Workshop isn't notable enough to stand on it's own.Glendoremus (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Ruff; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. I don't see a reason to merge, as the article is largely an unreferenced essay and lists one source. The rest appears to be original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Focht[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a 16-year-old hockey player who may one day be notable but clearly is not at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above. Fails WP:HOCKEY. Does not otherwise meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Likely a case of way too soon. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pasha Patel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable as per wp politics. Not much media coverage. Did not do anything notable either. —usernamekiran[talk] 14:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW and the last discussion "former member of a subnational legislature easily passes WP:NPOL. See http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-maha-polls-will-this-bjp-muslim-candidate-make-history-2024523" Domdeparis (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are around 500 MPs per five years in india. The news he has been in, all were just before and after the elections. Each and every contestant has that enough media coverage. Nothing special.

he was never in coverage after that. Did not do anything. Niether notable nor un-notable.

the person is not notable. Ergo, he doesnt deserve an article in encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran[talk] 15:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES Domdeparis (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL as a former MLC (Member of the Legislative Council). Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NPOL, and WP:POLOUTCOMES states, and I am quoting: "elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable". The key word here is generally. Please use general reasoning/logic WP:SNOW, instead of being bureaucratic. As of March 2017, there are 4120 members of legislative council, and around ~500 Member of Parliament. That is per five year. Pasha Patel here, is not notable at all except being a member. So the "generally" clause can be, and should be applied here. I always support for keeping articles, secondly of merging (you can see my recent contribution on AfD discussions), but Pasha Patel hasnt done anything notable, neither good stuff nor controversial. Actually, he hasnt done anything at all. —usernamekiran[talk] 17:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The elected or appointed membership of a state or national legislature is one of those topics where Wikipedia's explicitly stated and consensus-established goal is to be as complete as possible a reference for all of them. We do not apply special arbitrary standards to determine that some members of the legislature are notable enough for articles while others are not; people want and need information about all members of that legislature. Yes, the article needs more substance and more sourcing than it has right now — but it doesn't require more evidence of basic notability than it already has. And the fact that this is the second time this has been tried this year alone suggests a political agenda that violates WP:NPOV, not a serious or objective concern for Wikipedia's standards of notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Bearcat: that makes sense. And no, no political agenda here. I take back the proposal of AfD —usernamekiran[talk] 18:51, 14 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Health implications of environmental policy[edit]

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

Another student essay. Almost everything in this article is either:

available in the article about the piece of legislation in question
available in the article about the environmental problem being described
available in Environmental law or one of its sub-articles
POV pushing
speculation about Trump's future actions

This does not need its own "aggregation" article. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Environmental health or Environmental Law Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicative (nothing that I see to merge, as this is a hodgepodge of content already covered elsewhere). Alternatively, redirect to environmental health or Environmental policy. Pretty clear. (Side note: despite the broad title the content only deals with the United States). Neutrality^talk 03:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a fork from Environmental policy of the United States#impact and/or Merge all new material into Environmental policy of the United States and particularly Environmental policy of the United States#impact.
Above it is claimed that all of the material is easy to find in disparate subjects like environmental health, Environmental policy, environmental law, environmental protection, etc., but I do not see the work that the student has done when I go to those subjects: This student is writing on the relationship between the policy and the impact, which is different than simply describing the policy (current, past and proposed), describing the technical procedures required to follow the policy (and what that might cost), or simply describing the health impacts alone as in environmental health.
If the material exists it is in scattered about in numerous disparate places and not particularly well organized to make it easy to find. The closest is Environmental policy of the United States#impact which is very weak in comparison to the student's work.
I would hope the student(s) can help us improve the organization and structure of our environmental articles so the relevant material on this subject is easy to find.
As an example of how poor some of our existing articles are on this subject compared to the student's work, one need only look at Environmental_protection#United_States (under the strange category "Social Democracy"). Or look at Environmental_health#Concerns and explain how one is brought to the right topics summarizing impacts and policy related to "Toxic chemical exposure whether in consumer products, housing, workplaces, air, water or soil" or look at United_States_environmental_law. This article has material assembled together we do not have.
Keep and improve. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original parts of article appear to be mostly speculative. Appropriate for Wikiversity, not Wikipedia. PriceDL (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fundamentally unsuited to being a Wikipedia article, largely per nom. Some of the content is good, but those parts are already covered in other articles mentioned above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:33, 21 April 2017 (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. "Keeps" easily outnumber "deletes", but given the developing agreement at this related RfC, as well as the more longstanding WP:NOTINHERETED, having published numerous notable works is not sufficient to cement a publisher as independently notability. As such, I can find no consensus for either keeping or deleting. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paternoster Press[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly significant publishing house. Among other things, this can be seen in the large number of incoming links (WP:BEFORE, B5). StAnselm (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I did follow WP:BEFORE (which I said in my nomination). What links of those show notability? Hits prove nothing. Also, WP:CORP is the relevant thing here so how does the article pass that guideline? SL93 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has published many significant works from notable authors. The fact is that the coverage seems to be biased toward the works, rather than the publishing house. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I frequently come across this publisher while looking for sources. This history of the business is, in my opinion, reliable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion this source is reliable? LOL. In my opinion, John Rylands Library is the very model of a gold-plated WP:RS source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So basically people think that WP:IAR should be used I guess. The history of the business link is a primary source from the company. I see how authors can be notable for their works per WP:AUTHOR, but I think that the publishing company getting that notability is a stretch. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean the Manchester Library link I posted? Why do you say it is primary and from the company? Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The top of the article says that the creator is Paternoster Press. SL93 (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the creator of the collection, not of the entry. StAnselm (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even if that is the case, one source is not enough to show notability and no guideline based reasons for keeping were put forth. I hope that an AFD closer would have sense to relist this AFD until guideline based reasons are given. SL93 (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Multiple sources aren't strictly indicated by WP:N, rather it notes, "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." I've added a couple sources, but those aren't strictly independent, as they are published by Eerdmen's, a publishing house which frequently collaborates with Paternoster. Do you think the article passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR? Do you think the page is better suited to be a sub-topic in another article (which one)? My answers are "yes" and "no" respectively; and I feel my previous comments and this one are based on guidelines and policies. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        If you look at WP:N again, you will see statements like "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Note the s. SL93 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems we are talking past each other and I'm sorry to have pushed the discussion off-topic, feel free to follow up on my talk page. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability of a publisher can be validated by publishing multiple, significant books, just as notability of an author can be validated by publishing multiple, significant books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not per Wikipedia guidelines. SL93 (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the case with WP:AUTHOR, I am arguing by analogy. A similar analogy would apply to an identified architect or artist about whom virtually nothing is know except that a number of notable buildings or objects are the work of a particular, named individual. (not infrequent with material from ancient or medieval times).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has now been sourced. This is not to say that it is perfect, merely that we can close this discussion and move on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not closing the discussion. The sources are not independent of the subject. As for The Irish Times, I'm doubtful about it being significant coverage (per your obvious bias) and I can't see it. SL93 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyone can feel free to comment here - Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Are publishing companies who publish notable works automatically notable?. An AfD is not the place to change the site-wide consensus of WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources have now been identified to establish the notability of, and to verify substantial content about, this significant Christian publisher. This article provides significant, verifiable encyclopedic content which improves our coverage of the subject of Christian publishing; can't see how deletion would be a benefit. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of the sources are not independent. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't invent standards. Nowhere is it written that "the majority" of sources have to be independent. Editors have sourced this to 2 independent sources: The Irish Times and the librarians at John Rylands Library. Take a deep breath and ask yourself why you are so intent on deleting a reputable publishing house that started putting out well-regarded books during the reign of Edward VIII.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the only one with access to The Irish Times source, can you tell me how many sentences or paragraphs cover the company? No matter the outcome of this AfD, my RFC is still needed because the keeps were originally about it being notable just because it publishes notable works which isn't said anywhere and is likely inventing standards. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just the sentence I quoted a snippet from, but it suffices. Paywalls area a problem, though many editors have access to news archives.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Happily, I do have access to the Irish Times, and I am at a loss to figure how anyone claiming familiarity with the provisions of the GNG could possibly claim that this casual one-sentence namedrop meets the requirements for "significant coverage," since it most bloody explicitly does not. I am likewise at a loss as to how anyone could think that WP:AUTHOR applies to a publishing house. Publishing houses are not authors, and I wonder what other entities E.M.Gregory would care to unilaterally rewrite (or invent wholecloth) extant notability criteria to cover where notable books are concerned. The shipping companies? The bookstores that sell them? Banks that handle the financing?
As far as E.M.Gregory's question uptopic, I'd like to turn that around: why are you so intent on keeping this article that you're willing to rewrite or ignore the criteria upon which we make such decisions? SL93 is exactly right: AfD is not the proper venue to legislate notability criteria, and we must determine the notability of subjects based on the criteria that are in place. If you want to change those criteria, the appropriate talk pages are where you do it. Ravenswing 10:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think the Manchester Library source provides "significant coverage"? St Anselm (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a significant evangelical Christian press. The criterion is verifiable, not verified. There should be no difficulty in finding plenty of reviews of books they have published in the Christian press. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any independent sources. IMHO, many keep !votes here are along the lines of well all publishers of lots of books are notable. This is an argument that should be thrown out, as a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. I have seen the comments about the irish times, and it seems there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV, further, online I can't find anything independant, with sigcov. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:55, 22 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patients Helping Hands Welfare Association[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and the article reads like an advertisement. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bihuroz[edit]

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

Maldives is 99%+ Islamic country and follows the Hijri calendar. That calendar has no Bihuroz. I checked google scholar, google books and major scholarly resources behind paywalls. I can't find a single reliable source that mentions "Bihuroz". This article is original research. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be nothing more than a defenition. The garmine ^(talk) 14:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ElegantJ BI[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. Quasar G ^{t - c} 14:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ElegantJ BI seems to use a proprietary technology Managed Memory Computing, a business intelligence tool and also at AfD, for data analysis. I think neither meets WP:GNG as I can not find coverage of either of them in independent reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reference is very clearly a press release. Absolutely no notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing to confirm the notability of the product, fails WP:PRODUCT. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable and lacking refs. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as Managed Memory Computing which despite its capital letters is just a marketing buzzword. Way too soon for a Wikipedia article on either topic that meets notability levels required. W Nowicki (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Universal Party[edit]

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

This is not a notable political party. There is no coverage in independent reliable sources that I can find. Outside YouTube, Facebook and occassionally a soap box in Hyde Park, this doesn't seem to have any real substance as an organisation. Fences&Windows 14:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches on google.co.uk have found nothing. Clearly not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched, added a couple of plausible keywords, found nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2017 (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 Userfy (to User:Tamsberk/Food Justice). There is broad consensus that this is a POV term/fork, and that at least for now userfication and further development is the best solution. Note also that votestacking has been observed to have taken place in this AfD. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Food Justice[edit]

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

POV fork of Food security and Food security in the United States. A large number of social justice-related articles articles similar to this were created as a school project. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to food security as valid term [50] and merge references and appropriate content to Hunger in the United States. All-out deletion should not be necessary. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to those pages mentioned (Hunger in US & Food Security) is a valid point and will be considered, however, food justice movement is significant and merits its own page. Tamsberk (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only should this article obviously be deleted, but it is close to being suitable for speedy deletion, as the whole article, from start to finish, is clearly written to promote a point of view. Such use of Wikipedia is unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect (with a lowercase "j") Valid search term, article is entirely POV pushing as JamesBWatson states. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What specific sections are pushing a POV? The creators of the page are EXTREMELY open to feedback and making necessary changes; we are new users and act/write in good faith. This topic is extremely valuable especially as a resource for those affected by food injustices to be informed. We welcome edits to the page and look forward to collaborating to improve this article, rather than rushing to deletion. Tamsberk (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"What specific sections are pushing a POV?" How does one even begin to answer a question such as that? The whole article, from start to finish, is clearly written to promote an opinion. To quote just a few of the most glaring examples, "Food justice is the right of all people", "Food assistance programs are important for food justice", and "structurally faulty legislation that disproportionately affects people of color and socioeconomic minorities". None of those can conceivably be viewed as neutral and dispassionate reporting. However, it would be a serious misunderstanding to imagine that all that needs to be done is to remove a few blatantly promotional sentences such as those, because the whole concept of the article is that a particular view of issues relating to food is the "just" one; even the title of the article indicates that. Furthermore, your message here indicates clearly that your purpose is to use Wikipedia for promotion. Consider the phrase "for those affected by food injustices to be informed": you are both asserting the view that the issues in question are "food injustices" and indicating that your aim is to use the article to "inform" people of the views expressed in the article, i.e. to publicise or promote those views. No matter what the merits or demerits of an opinion, Wikipedia's policy is that articles must not express or advocate that opinion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-Hello, thanks for the feedback. The article is still in progress and we will edit to reflect more POVs and not use biased phrases. Food justice is an important, well-established concept in environmental justice discourse and merits its own page. It is a bit more difficult to write neutrally about social justice related topics; see also the pages food sovereignty and via campesina have some similar points. Feel free to read through our references. They are all reliable and the majority are peer-reviewed. As for the phrase "structurally faulty legislation that disproportionately affects people of color and socioeconomic minorities", I can see how the words "structurally faulty" may be perceived as bias, but there are statistics and peer-reviewed studies that prove environmental and food access issues disproportionately affect minorities. We do not seek to promote a certain viewpoint, but rather to post information on food justice issues publicly in a manner that is easily accessible for those affected. Thanks. Laejstudent2 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of food justice is undeniably intertwined with food injustices, and to ignore that would be a waste of knowledge and only deflate the value and quality of the article. One of the phrases you quoted was pulled out of context; earlier in that sentence it was clearly stated that "one PROPOSED cause of food deserts is structurally faulty legislation...". Some legislation, particularly FDR's New Deal as we noted in this example, has direct and explicit implications that we touch on in the article as possible contributors to food deserts. The team behind this page does find value in your critique and we intend to include more theories on the causes of food justice - related issues. No views are being pushed, much of our data comes from the US government -- we do recognize that this article is mostly focused on the US and encourage others to contribute to the article to help make it more worldly. Tamsberk (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Food Justice is a world renowned term, and there is a lot of peer-reviewed literature regarding Food Justice. Here is one example from a major academic press. EJAlly (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a POV piece, that relies mainly on unreliable sources. http://justfood.org/advocacy/what-is-food-justice & http://www.wellhousegr.org/food-justice-grows-at-well-house/ are not suitable sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the above commented or noted food justice is a part of a larger established environmental movement it also refers to much more. It is deeply tied to racial justice and economic justice. It is understood as one way that we can challenge racism and classism in the public sphere. It is not homogenous movement. It refers to many different movements and smaller perspectives. Food justice does not simply refer to a POV; it is a movement and an object of scholarly analysis. Anthropologist, sociologist, scientists, feminist and queer studies scholars have all analysed food justice in their work. HmEdit (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2017 (EST) — HmEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep ~~or Userfy -- the article, as is, has significant problems, as noted above (POV; too many inadequate sources; and, WP:OR). However, as the authors correctly point out,~~ significant improvement from when I first suggested to Userfy (revised 04:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)). The subject is notable because of coverage in secondary sources. Although we do have just a tiny little section Food_security#Food_Justice_Movement that the best material could be merged to, ultimately this subject is significant enough that it will need its own article. So it seems a wasted effort to merge and then have to separate again later.
Instead, it would be better to get the students to fix the article to comply with our standards. If this was indeed part of a school assignment, we should do outreach to the instructor to explain our sourcing standards and the problem with WP:OR, not delete the students' hard work. That outreach has occurred. [added 04:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)] --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change to the first sentence of the article citing far better WP:RS than the WP:OR that was there previously. With WP:RS like what I added, I see potential for this article to grow. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy per JamesBWatson. Although the subject may be deserving of an article, this is not the article it deserves. I think WP:TNT applies here. St Anselm (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made a change to the first sentence of the article citing far better WP:RS than the WP:OR that was there previously. With WP:RS like what I added, I see potential for this article to grow. There is other good WP:RS in the article that can be found from Google Scholar search of food justice and possibly some references listed in the journal article of the new lede sentence. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources look good, I see Routledge, JSTOR, journals, government sources and the topic is notable. I made some changes also and agree with User:David Tornheim, it has potential to grow. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy-. The subject may command an article, but this is not it.Apply WP:TNT.Winged Blades^Godric 06:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The perceived and actual discriminatory policies that it describes and seeks to counter is matched in this article by equal and opposite bias. This is neither balanced nor encyclopaedic and the content should have been incorporated elsewhere. I would rate this as an essay at best with very strong whiffs of marshalling arguments to fit a preconceived outcome. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Food justice and associated movements are political, so descriptions of such a movement may contain discussion of political opinion. This page is worthwhile and growing. It could use editing, but by no means should not be deleted. Aaron Whyte Talk 17:00, 14 April 2017 (EST) — Aaron Whyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What about keeping the article and adding a tag saying "the neutrality of this article is disputed" until it has been more thoroughly edited?Laejstudent2 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but make POV. Reasons for keep: 1) The is a lot of peer-reviewed literature regarding Food Justice. In short, it is fashionable among academia. 2) As noted above, food justice is a part of a larger established environmental movement 3) As note above, the article has sources such as: Routledge, JSTOR, journals, government sources 4) Google trends shows a steady interest in the concept.[51] 5) Google shows over 450,00 search results for "food justice". [52] Dean Esmay (talk)

Keep, - Food justice work, increasingly and explicitly named as such, has been accelerating in the US since the 1990s, with food justice scholar Sbicca defining is as a movement, or to be specific: “a budding social movement premised on ideologies that critique the structural oppression responsible for many injustices throughout the agrifood system” (Sbicca, (2012, p. 455). ^[1] The work of food justice activists is as real as any other movements (e.g., environmental justice, Black Lives Matter, Occupy), whether or not scholars and scientists find it (to use a word above) fashionable to document, discuss and analyze that work. However, especially with the rapidly growing reams of scholarly and other written and multi-media documentation of that work (including by academics such as myself and by activists), makes the notion that this entry could or should be deleted rather bizarre. The motivations for suggesting is should be deleted are either uninformed or driven by those holding a "POV" that would wish that "food justice" were not a goal, movement or concept. It is all of those things -a goal, a movement and a concept. Like most Wikipedia entries about current social movements, the content is inherently political, and the movement itself of course "contains" very strong points of view. But describing those views and the movement, as mostly this entry does, does not constitute being "merely" a POV. There is no such thing as a view from nowhere, so in that sense, all entries are a "POV", but one of the beauties of wikipedia, is that assembling and integrating multiple points of view gets us closer to what Sandra Harding calls strong objectivity.CMPorter (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC) — CMPorter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^ Sbicca, J. (2012). Growing food justice by planting an anti-oppression foundation: opportunities and obstacles for a budding social movement. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(4), 455-466.

userfy There is ~almost~ a Wikipedia article here, but this needs a lot of work improving sources, removing OFFTOPIC/COATRACK content (like the Industrial Agriculture section), and removing SYN and advocacy. Sentences like "Food assistance programs can be important for food justice because they help struggling groups of people get the healthy food that they need to sustain and nourish their bodies" show how this article is an essay, stitching together stuff that the authors believe is relevant and advocating for certain solutions. Wikipedia articles don't participate in real world disputes; WP articles describe them. (see Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers) That may seem subtle but the quoted sentence is well over the line (and that is one teeny example). The editing community would be pushing back just as hard if the Cato institute sent a team of interns to create a slew of content advocating for libertarianism in WP. We actually just went through something like that and are still cleaning up after it. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the sentence you objected to, and I hope this version addresses your concerns about that sentence. If no source can be found for the sentence ending with the {{citation needed}} tag, we can of course delete it. I leave research of that material to the students for now. Thanks for pointing to the problem so we could fix it. Is there any other material you object to? Perhaps raise it on the talk page of the article? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article reflects the academic literature in this field of study. It is a topic of discussion at dozens of national and international conferences. This entry describes the food justice movement and the concepts linked to it. The students can comply with any standards required for a post on wikipedia. — Ametrine-Ametrine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep yes it's clearly horribly POV but that is a reason to fix it, not to delete it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Having read in more detail, it's going to be a big job to fix. It seems shot through with POV (for example: TPP is bad, NAFTA good). I would still prefer to keep, but I am not certain that it will get fixed in a reasonable time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:21, 19 April 2017 (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. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Philippine network television schedule[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Any content here could easily be mentioned (not merged) at 2017 in Philippine television instead. CSD under A10 was declined by Vanjagenije. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2017 in Philippine television: As it contains NOT content, maybe redirecting would been better. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We are not an EPG nor a directory. scope_creep (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f e minist 14:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make Me Love You[edit]

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

Article contains nothing rather than an infobox and a tracklist. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Simon (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 16:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - There needs to be some significant independent sourcing or notable chart listings which evidently does not exist.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NALBUMS#1, #4 and #6. I have recently added material to this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a result of recent improvements to the article, it has passed GNG in my opinion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements. Aoba47 (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ventenner[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND for lack of available reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 12:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to fail WP:NBAND. bojo | talk 12:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2017 (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 18:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pesticide drift and leaching in the Central Valley of California[edit]

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

Another violation of WP:NOTESSAY from a UC Berkeley class. There is a very little in the article specific to the topic at hand, and a great deal of hand-waving. But the topic itself fails WP:N. St Anselm (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the nomination that I have doubts about -- and the key part for the purposes of any Afd -- is the nominator's statement that "the topic itself fails WP:N." When I Google "pesticide" and "Central Valley" -- as I assume the nominator has done -- there is news coverage of the impact of pesticides on residents in the area. Grist (magazine): "No, that’s not snow: Pesticides coat California’s Central Valley" (2012); The New Republic: "How Gross Is My Valley: America’s toxic agricultural capital" (2010). The New Republic piece is especially detailed. And then of course there's the citations on the article such as Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice (MIT Press, 2011), whose abstract indicates that California agriculture is the focus. Central Valley (California) is "California's single most productive agricultural region and one of the most productive in the world." Wherever you have factory farming on such a vast scale there are going to be issues with pesticides. Here in Canada, there've been many articles and at least one documentary on pesticides and health in tiny Prince Edward Island, for example. Anyway, whatever problems there may be with the article, it is exploring a notable topic, from what I can determine. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I intentionally referred to the broader concept of notability rather than WP:GNG. WP:NOTESSAY is also part of notability. So, yes - I see some hits, but that would only be enough to mention the Central Valley in the Pesticide drift (which is very thin - why wasn't that expanded instead?) - not a standalone article. St Anselm (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, NOTESSAY is often confused with Notability because of the shortcut WP:NOT -- it's why we have a hatnote on the policy page to clear that up for people. They're both part of policy but not notability, necessarily. One can write an essay that's unencylopedic on a notable topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as for Pesticide drift, that's an article on the science of how pesticides drift. This is more like Environmental effects of pesticide in the Central Valley of California, per Category:Environmental effects of pesticides -- and something very like that would make for a much better title, if kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself is an overly broad essay that is already covered by topics such as pesticide drift or other articles dealing with environmental effects in general. Any sources that do mention that location (including Google mentions above) do not establish a unique WP:GNG for pesticide issues in this location. In terms of pesticide issue notability, this topic would be equivalent to having an article every time a regional newspaper reports on a flu outbreak and saying that qualifies for a Flu outbreak in X state article. This location would have a long ways to go to warrant its own article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The general topic is notable (Pesticide drift), there is no evidence that its impact on this specific region is especially notable. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above comments
Keep California's Central Valley is likely the most important single agricultural area in the world. See this Wiki section for just a bit of the evidence for this, and the scale of pesticide use, its proximity to large populations of workers and residents, and the interactions of agriculture with California's unique approach to toxics regulation All point to super-notability! --EJustice (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to point out that User:EJustice has a significant COI as the instructor of the course which produced this. St Anselm (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my vote, the regional legislation and significance for national food supply support notability, I checked HeinOnline and the laws in this region have been covered sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG including California's Pesticide enforcement program and The Regulation of Pesticides in California Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Renaming this article to something less technical and more understandable, specifically "Pesticide Regulations in California" which does meet WP:GNG but can still use most of this article for background. I would be willing to contribute to help expand and clean up some of the POV language in the article (like changing "Trump administration" to EPA, etc.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

move and repurpose. The current title is much too narrow for encyclopedic treatment. It results in synthesis of more general materials. We already have an article Environmental impact of pesticides. However this is big enough already so the article here could be renamed to Environmental impact of pesticides in California. The section "Burden shared by marginalized communities in the Central Valley" looks to be original research, but that is easily fixed by deleting that section only. The alternative to repurposing to a broader topic would be to delete, but there is some useful material here worth preserving. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would a merge/redirect to California Department of Pesticide Regulation be called for, given the degree of overlap? Neutrality^talk 05:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article title itself doesn't seem to overlap any more with that than pesticide drift, etc., so a redirect really isn't appropriate here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my guess is the topic is broader then appropriate - it would also seem borderline WP:SYNTH except in the specific context where secondary sources establish a relationship between an observed effect of regulation or a regulatory outcome and a policy implementation - for example, there are sources that discuss how the EPA's statistical methods impact regulatory outcomes, but that is graduate school level material - there could be something to add at California Department of Pesticide Regulation, but I think Environmental impact of pesticides in California would likely be a better choice. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look through the article, and nothing really passes WP:DUE muster for environmental effects. Nothing really would be merged into California Department of Pesticide Regulation either since that article already covers the same content (though that article itself needs a rewrite). Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: thank you for all of the recommendations. We appreciate the feedback in order to make the page stronger and more relevant. We're willing to comply with several of the requests; the first of which being changing the name of the page. However, this seems difficult to do. Can anyone help with that? Irenekeller

Generally, it's better not to change an article's name while a deletion discussion is going on. If there consensus is to keep the article under a different name, the person who closes the discussion will probably move it. St Anselm (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current version is not specific to the topic; the earlier version was, but it was a cross between advocacy and a term paper. This has been a perennial problem with some courses in the educational program--what is suitable for a class paper will rarely be suitable for an encyclopedia . A class paper is normally intending to prove a thesis, but we do not do this. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to recommend merge to pesticide drift, as the topic makes a much better sub-heading within the general article, than a standalone article; however, the current format is very much that of arguing a thesis, as pointed out above - using a variety of sources that are all applicable but not specific to the topic, while pulling in bits of information from the firmament at large to bolster a point. Strip that unsuitable structure away, and very little is left here.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. Just a note that the article had been recently moved to Environmental Effects of Pesticide Use in California. Given that there hasn't been consensus for a move/redirect here, I've moved it back to avoid even more confusion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ take back to the sandbox to turn it into an encyclopedic format. Reads like an opinion piece and not an encyclopedia article right off the "is a cause for concern." and finishing with "What's at stake in California There’s about a half million expectant moms and 2.5 million children under age 4 in California that could be at risk from toxic residues of chlorpyrifos on food" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An encyclopedia is not a showcase for student writing or a vehicle for activism. Ifnord (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly pesticide drife and Central Valley agriculture are important topics. This article, however, has a WP:SYNTH problem, failing to show that pesticide drift in the Central Valley is an independently notable topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2017 (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. Article improved and sources added since nomination. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yagya Bahadur Thapa[edit]

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

Was deleted through Prod back in February. While brave, does not pass WP:GNG. At best a case of WP:1E, but delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Yagya Bahadur Thapa was Former military Captain who was given death penalty by the government of Nepal for his armed revolution against Panchayat Government. I provided references as Himalayan Times, one of the leading Nepalese National English daily and Kathmandu Post, another leading Nepalese English daily. Also, there are a dozens of Google Books which has mentioned his name. Yagya Bahadur Thapa has been included in Nepalese curriculums and many govt. gazettes. He is a man of high rank and character. The most important part is you can easily rely on these two independent national English daily which has strict editorial control and guidance policies.

Best Wishes Airkeeper (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Yagya Bahadur Thapa was leading revolutionaries in Eastern Hill as per sources and was notable enough for special tribunal decision and further to Supreme Court of Nepal as mentioned in the sources. Those revolution events against Panchayat is a National Discussion Subject that resulted in abolishment of autocratic Panchayat rule in Nepal. He obviously deserves an article in the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airkeeper (talk • contribs) 12:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC) User:onel5969 The revolution events are notable enough in Nepalese context and I described everything in the paragraphs above. That revolution is called Timurbote Incident in Nepal and all these incidents resulted King Birendra of Nepal to abolish Panchayat (Nepal). I think we need a Nepali admin to understand the notability of Nepalese topics. Please check the sources and edit it but do not delete the article. Kind Regards Airkeeper (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject was a revolutionary leader in Nepal in the 1970s; returns numerous results on a Google Books search; three results on Google Scholar. He has his own entry in the 2017 Historical Dictionary of Nepal published in the USA by the respected academic publishers Rowman & Littlefield. It appears that the subject suffers from a dearth of English-language Internet sources. A Google search for the subject's name in Nepali, on the other hand, (यज्ञबहादुर थापा) returns 27,000+ results. The members of the (European) Red Army Faction have their own articles; I'd suggest that the subject has a similar level of notability within Nepal (I stress it's not my intention to draw a parallel between the aims/ideology/methods of the subject and Baader-Meinhof members). Bad-patches (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Airkeeper makes a sound case. I realize that being an English speaking encyclopedia that political events occurring outside of USA/Europe/English speaking countries may seem less notable. In other words, “all politics is local”, but I think we should resist this urge. And he did receive notable coverage in his country in major newspapers. Unfortunately, I have noticed that in countries where there are close ties to the West (Philippines, Korea, etc.), there is a greater tendency to favor notability in terms of press coverage. The same may apply to Wikipedia.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've expanded the article a bit. I think it passes 1E, given multiple events in his life getting coverage: Thapa's involvement in the Biratnagar bombing early in 1974, his arrest in a state of revolt later that year, his execution in 1978, and his being declared martyr in 2016. The article passes V and NOR. NPOV is very tough in an article like this, but the current state of the article seems acceptable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ratna Kumar Bantawa[edit]

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

While brave, does not pass WP:GNG. At best a case of WP:1E, but delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE search suggests an unfortuante lack of coverage for this young fellow: [53] is mostly social media (for example, [54], which in any case is auto-generated, and [55]), zines ([56]), with one mention in a reliable source ([57]), which is insufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet notability standards. Could not find sufficient notable sources/citations.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus that the content issues are severe enough to outweigh the notability of the topic. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impacts of pig farming[edit]

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

Appears to be an essay with a particular POV. Even if the subject is encyclopedic, this essay concentrates on one country. Also contains unsourced statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice (I have removed any that were BLP issues). Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV pushing, extensive overlap with Environmental impact of meat production. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written as an essay and not an encyclopedia article. Complete failure of WP:NPOV. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Environmental impact of meat production is general and does not include specifics of any industry (pig, cattle, etc.) - the article needs a rewrite and I think it should be templated. The title is WP:NPOV and the subject is notable, this has also been a major issue in China in recent years documented by WP:RS like Reuters, The Economist, The Guardian - I don't think AfD is a substitute for editing and improving an article that currently has problems. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:DINC; NPOV problems are not a valid reason for deletion. Many, many reliable sources on the environmental impact of pig farming specifically exist, discussing regions worldwide, including:
- Agriculture, Trade and the Environment: The Pig Sector. OECD Publishing. 2003. p. 1. ISBN 978-92-64-10417-4.
- Eriksson, Ingrid Strid; Elmquist, Helena; Stern, Susanne; Nybrant, Thomas (2004). "Environmental Systems Analysis of Pig Production" (PDF). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 10 (2): 143–154.
- Maria Angeles O. Catelo. Structural Changes in the Philippine Pig Industry and Their Environmental Implications. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. p. 1.
- Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., & Hermansen, J. E. (2007). Danish pork production: an environmental assessment. Aarhus University.
- Reckmann, K.; Traulsen, I.; Krieter, J. (2012). "Environmental Impact Assessment methodology with special emphasis on European pork production" (PDF). Journal of Environmental Management. 107: 102–109.
- Brooks, P. H., J. D. Beal, and S. Niven. "Liquid feeding of pigs: potential for reducing environmental impact and for improving productivity and food safety." Recent advances in animal nutrition in Australia 13 (2001): 49-63.
- Nguyen, Thu Lan T.; Hermansen, John E.; Mogensen, Lisbeth (2012). "Environmental costs of meat production: the case of typical EU pork production" (PDF). Journal of Cleaner Production. 28: 168–176.
- Trienekens, J.; Petersen, B.; Wognum, N.; Brinkmann, D. (2009). European Pork Chains: Diversity and Quality Challenges in Consumer-oriented Production and Distribution. Wageningen Academic Publishers. p. 64. ISBN 978-90-8686-103-3.
- Verstegen, M.W.A. (1993). Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Nitrogen Flow in Pig Production and Environmental Consequences. EAAP publication. PUDOC. ISBN 978-90-220-1085-3.

That's more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Problems with the article as it stands should be addressed by improving the article, not removing it. FourViolas (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, here in Canada, it's a big deal, especially in Quebec and New Brunswick. A petition to the Government of Canada resulted in about hog production resulted in these responses form three federal ministries, archived as Environmental impacts of intensive hog operations, New Brunswick. The response from Environment Canada does acknowledge that there are specific issues to the hog industry, above and beyond livestock in general. The petition also makes mention of Bacon, The Film, a documentary film on "the social and environmental impacts of this proliferation of huge hog operations." The latter would be considered an additional reliable source, as the issues related to the hog industry in Canada would pertain in the U.S. as well. Now, I get that this is an article on "Environmental impacts of pig farming" in the United States and that's fine, at least for now. "...Concentrat[ing] on one country" is an argument for expansion, not deletion. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present form, but try to add content and salvage. The article has an axe to grind and is not NPOV. The article would have to be expanded to be encyclopedic. Not sure if original author would be willing to do this. Highly doubtful that the author would be willing to revamp the article. The article is a case where pro-pig farm arguments are intentionally left out. For example, the economic loss to the pig farmers if pig farms were shut down or radically had to change the way they operated. I personally would not want to live next to a pig farm as I heard the stench can be very strong. Dean Esmay (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup, or merge/redirect. FourViolas lays out the sources that establish notability here. Yes, the article does needs cleanup, but its current state isn't so bad so as to call for WP:TNT. No objection to a merge/redirect to either Concentrated animal feeding operation or pig farming. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic certainly looks to be notable, and is actually a suitable topic for Wikipedia. There is sufficient content to stand alone and not be merged elsewhere. Sure there are problems with balance in the article. They can be indicated by a tag, and are not due to POV pushing. This sort of problem should be fixed by editing, and not by deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushing, and any useful info that does conform to NPOV can be merged into the pig farming article. Rockypedia (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2017 (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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Haider Hussain Rizvi[edit]

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

Autobiography fails GNG; PRIMARY sources only provided, a secondary search for further sources by nominator finds none. DarjeelingTea (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Article seems to be an autobiography and so violates Conflict of Interest policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiten Dhandha (talk • contribs) 12:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. I'm not sure the removals of the speedy tag were allowed but let's deal with it here. Now someone has come along and started vandalizing the article with disparaging and ridiculous comments, and I find myself utterly unmoved to correct it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to speedy it, Shawn in Montreal, but there was just too much going on with the triple tag removals and multiple socks, etc. I figured, at the end of the day, just AFD'ing it would get the same result without all the reverts. DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and Shawn. Total promo and no credible claim of significance. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tagged for speedy deletion - I can't see the point in puttung this through a whole AfD, speedy is supposed to be to stop AfD backlogs. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managed Memory Computing[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Quasar G ^{t - c} 11:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks to be a particular company's sales name for Database caching. - MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a prevalent term. Appears to be a specific companies jargon/solution. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- falls very far short of the bar for WP:CORPDEPTH. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Managed Memory Computing seems to be a proprietary technology used by ElegantJ BI, a business intelligence tool, also at AdD. I think neither meets WP:GNG as I can not find coverage of either of them in independent reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The capital letters made me think this might be the name of a company, but it is just the usual attempt to make some marketing term sound more grandiose by using capital letters. The company also up for deletion is ElegantJ BI, edited by the same single-purpose accounts. W Nowicki (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lorence Hud[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. Half of this tiny article is word-for-word almost the same as his Allmusic bio.[58] Clarityfiend (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I agree. Nothing that satisfied WP:MUSICBIO. Very short article. Knox490 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2017 (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. The only delete comments were before StAnselm's and E.M. Gregory's improvements and despite two relistings, there were no more sound delete !votes (only such !vote seems to have misread the references). So Why 20:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James R Payton Jr.[edit]

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

No secondary sources, seems to fail WP:PROF Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a history professor who does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A GS h-index of 5 is not enough for WP:Prof#C1, even for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep: His book won a Word Guild prize in 2014,[59] though this is not mentioned in the article. Is that enough for WP:ANYBIO #1? It appears to be the Canadian equivalent of the Gold Medallion Book Award, and that has been enough to establish notability in the past (e.g. Bodie and Brock Thoene). St Anselm (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- InterVarsity is an important Evangelical Christian Press, one that does not publish rubbish. If this were being presented before any books were published, I would probably be voting to delete. Evangelicals tend to ignore the Early Fathers, so that a book from that viewpoint on one of them is itself important. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I was able to improve the page slightly with material found in a scholarly review of one of his books. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the first references work and the last one is a book written by Payton himself. --Rogerx2 (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the reference I mentioned above. St Anselm (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And no, the last one is not written by him - it's an independent review of a book he wrote. St Anselm (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The books are widely held, including by non-religious university libraries.[60] I take that to indicate he may be an influential scholar in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neda Moridpour[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. The references in the article are one of two: not independent of the subject; are directly written from organizations, which fail WP:SOURCE. The subject lacks significant coverage from third-party reliable sources, and simply does not appear notable. ℯ xplicit 02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She has gotten these coverages as an artist as well as an activist. For these reasons she passes WP:GNG which most of the time surpasses WP:ARTIST. Antonioatrylia (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonioatrylia: I see that you've done some work and have replaced some references, but the underlying problems of Neda Moridpou failing to be the main subject of various, significant coverage from sources independent of her are still vastly left in tact. As of this revision, this is what the sources offer: 1) The most legitimate reference in the article, this does talk about Moridpour. The article is about her art exhibit with S.A. Bachman. That's pretty much it. 2) Written by an organization which "provides each funded project with up to $50,000 in direct funding and career development service" [61], although the disclaimer in the provided sources does read: "Although these projects were not ultimately funded by Creative Capital". Fails WP:SOURCE regardless. 3) Co-written by Moridpour, and is therefore not an independent source. 4) Written by Moridpour and falsely attributed to Sarah Moawad (I can't find the surname 'Moawad' anywhere in the article). 5) She is not mentioned in the source. 6) I don't have access to this source. However, if its purpose is solely to show that her work is included here, this isn't significant coverage. 7) Written by the college where she is an alumni, and not independent. 8) Written by the festival organization, where her work was shown; not entirely independent. So, even now, Moridpour herself has not been subject to significant coverage from sources independent from her to establish her notability. ℯ xplicit 11:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Substantial independent sources not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Her work is reviewed in the LA Times, OC Weekly, and Entertainment Close up (subscription needed). I would expect that there may be reviews in Farsi since she's been interviewed on Farsi-language radio. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work in digging up these sources but they seem to give only WP:BLP1E. Tyros are rarely notable; more substantial career achivement is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. Did you see this? It seems VOA Farsi did a 6-minute report (mostly) about her in 2013. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biwom: I assessed the LA Times article above in my response to Antonioatrylia. OC Weekly mentions her in passing. What does the third source entail? Finally, the awbw.org source is from an organization that displays her work, which also fails WP:SOURCE. As WP:GNG reads: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. It additionally reads: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The topic here is Neda Moridpour, but say very little about her directly, and more about the exhibitions where her work, along with that of others, is displayed. The article contains several references to make the subject look notable, but it really comes across as WP:REFBOMB. ℯ xplicit 00:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Megalibrarygirl (I mistakenly thought Biwom had made the original keep argument). ℯ xplicit 00:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wouldn't imagine Voice of America is affiliated with Neda Moridpour. Did you watch the video? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biwom: My comment was in regards to the website you linked. As I do not speak the language, the only bit I understood was the English between 3:45–4:16. Is this a language you understand? If so, can briefly summarize the report and clarify if Neda Moridpour is talked about in detail, or if it's just the exhibit? ℯ xplicit 01:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit, thanks for pinging me! The subject's work is reviewed in the LA Times, OC Weekly and Entertainment Close Up. A person is not an insignificant artist if they're reviewed in the LA Times and I feel the other reviews help add to her significance. Also, REFBOMB doesn't apply if what's added to the article are reliable, independent sources showing that her work is being reviewed, or that she is in the media. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2017 (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. Only per NACTOR, and if no sources can be found it can be renominated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Harrison[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNGcreated by SPA with no other contributions
completely unreferenced Rayman60 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- Roles in Murphy's Law (TV series) and Humans (TV series) (which appears to be a new recurring role in the current season) seem to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Needs sourcing, though. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've seen Humans. Me watching it doesn't make her notable, but her have a recurring role would IMHO. Would still like to see more in-depth pieces about her to expand the page, but I feel she meets the criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:20, 14 April 2017 (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. Coverage is local and routine only, does not pass WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Film Festival[edit]

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

Article about a minor film festival, referenced entirely to deadlinks on the personal website of its own executive director rather than to reliable source coverage of the festival in media. An event like this is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists; it must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH, but even on a ProQuest search I can't find enough coverage of it to clear that bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very famous. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources can you show to attest to how "famous" it is? Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Local coverage exists, at least, and includes a recent, and decently substantive Hamilton Spectator article reporting that in 11 years this has grown from "26 submissions on DVD and VHS — mostly from [the founder's] friends" to "150 feature-length movies, documentaries and short films whittled down from 700 submissions" [62], as well as things of varying substance like [63][64][65][66][67]. And a namedrop at MLB.com, of all places. [68] One thing I noted while looking for sources is that they have a lot of different festivals in Hamilton. And of course the case for notability would be more solid if someone could identify some substantive coverage in national media (or even just in Toronto). --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a minor event; significance is strictly local. The page appears to exist to list the nn winners, so WP:PROMO applies as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland Department of Computer Science[edit]

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

For academic departments, usually we only make articles for the top 3 or 4 in the world--15th in the country is not notable-. Of the 14 references,13 are from themselves. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think there needs to be such numerical thresholds as "top 3 or 4". I count 3 refs not from themselves; yes, they are only mentions in passing. Then again, departments are rarely the kind of things that are prominently featured for themselves; they are background information for the prominent people and industries which they get off the ground. In that respect, I think this department has been quite successful, and that the article provides somewhat useful context connecting notable people, companies, and events. Conversely, I see absolutely no harm in keeping it. I admit having trouble pointing to a specific piece of policy that would mandate that it be kept, though. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- largely unsourced original research & promotionalism. This content belongs on the University's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am going to have to say that if, as per Gamell Wednesday, departments are rarely the kind of things that are prominently featured, but are just background information, then departments rarely are notable (and they don't WP:INHERIT notability from their prominent alumni and faculty). If the only 3 non-self refs for this one only mention the department in passing, then that points to it not being notable. Agricolae (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2017 (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 CeX (company). Without deleting it first to allow users to merge content if necessary. So Why 20:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Dudani[edit]

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

I have concerns whether the sources are sufficient to have the subject meet WP:NBIO; deprodded by User:Boleyn (creator) so we are here. He got a few paragraphs on himself in [69], and a bit more coverage as he was featured in an episode of reality show The Secret Millionaire [70], but is this sufficient? To me it is still on the low side of required in-depth coverage by multiple independent sources. At best, I can see his bio merged to the reality show page, which could have a list of episodes and its heroes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Article now has sources from 3 national, reliable publications and 3 local, reliable publications. As I stated on the article's talk page where I tried to start a discussion yesterday with Piotrus about this, this would not be a candidate for deletion even if he was non-notable, we should always look for WP:ATD. If non-notable, it would be a choice of merge to his company's article (CeX (company)) or (less likely) to the Channel 4 programme, The Secret Millionaire, where he had a whole episode on him and his philanthropy. Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree. You don't list which sources are which. I hope you don't count [71] in your "national, reliable publications". This is half-based on quotes from the subject. Nope, I don't see much quality coverage - this is not a subject fit for an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which is which, do you mean which are local and which national? The Croydon Guardian, Tottenham Independent and East London Lines are local, and all had full articles on Dudani (two of them had several articles on him actually, I just used one from each as references as the others didn't include much new information in terms of making an encyclopaedia article). The Telegraph, Radio Times and The Guardian are national, reliable publications. The Guardian is a national broadsheet and reliable; the article is based on interviews so yes, it uses quotes from the subjects of the article, but that isn't a concern. The Telegraph is also reliable, though you're right that as it is an announcement in the Telegraph, it is essentially a primary source so doesn't really count towards notability. The Radio Times is a national publication which reviews TV and radio shows, only those that are most of interest. That still leaves 2 national, reliable publications and 3 local newspapers. There was also a lot of coverage in tech publications that I wasn't sure were reliable or not. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy reliance on interviews is a concern, per WP:INTERVIEW. Review of a TV show or episode does not mean the person who appeared in said episode is notable. Etc. I am not impressed by the sources; you as the creator who used them have a different opinion. Let's see if anyone else joins our discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple, reliable sources on this man. I'm not sure he meets the criteria for inclusion except those laid out at BASIC and GNG, but the coverage here is sufficient for inclusion in this encyclopaedia. I also fail to understand why this was not a merge proposal; I disagree that any of the pages on the 'Secret Millionaire' would have been suitable, but his company's page would have been, were he non-notable. However, I am satisfied that the sources are of an acceptable standard: not outstanding, but certainly over the bar. MartinJones (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- not every CEO / founder is notable, and in this case, the accomplishments do not warrant an encyclopedia article. Sourcing is thing, to the point that the article does not make a particular claim to notability; closer to A7 than to being a notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman, why did you vote delete rather than merge/redirect to company as an WP:ATD? Even if you think the sources aren't enough (I'd have to disagree strongly with that), then he is surely a valid search item for someone who has heard of him, through his work as CEO/founder of a notable company or his episode in a notable show. This article geets several hundred views a month. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CeX (company) where the subject is mentioned. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Altogether trivial coverage, and not enough for an article. But it's a reasonable search term. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like a reasonable way to WP:PRESERVE his name as a search topic and individual with a degree of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2017 (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 Mistakes_in_English_law#Inter_praesentes. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis v Averay[edit]

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

There are numerous case cites to this legal decision, however, beyond that, there doesn't appear to be coverage outside of case law to establish that this court case meets GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is cited and linked to in Mistakes in English law. Is that perhaps enough? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, since Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't being clear: I wasn't asking if it should be kept on that basis, but rather, redirected. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sufficiently conversant with UK law to assess the importance of this case, but for those who are and who want to take a look, there is a page with information on it here. For those wishing to research further, the cite appears to be Lewis v. Averay [1972] 1 QB 198 (UK). TJRC (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been nil participation since the last two relists.The participants have just commented but not !voted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable or Redirect to Mistakes in English law. L3X1 (distant write) 14:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence: possibly Keep (see pages 560-1 of [72]) or Redirect and Merge into Mistakes_in_English_law#Inter_praesentes. I already copied the text so, no real need to merge, just redirect. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East Hope Group[edit]

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

Insufficient depth of coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Available sourcing consists of mentions and other routine business coverage. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— All the information contained in the article is taken from reputable sources providing coverage on an international, national and local level. I have relied on established publications observing and analyzing the aluminium industry, widely circulated English news outlets, major Asian English-language dailies, Chinese news articles, as well as official government publications in Chinese. The article cites multiple independent sources. They are not merely trivial coverage, since they do not simply report meetings, phone numbers, routine notices, etc., as specified in WP:CORPDEPTH. Below is a run-down on the sources I used:
1. Industry About is a standard reference for industrial data in the metals sector based on transparency and a standardized method of gathering and analyzing data, including East Hope, as in this case. http://www.industryabout.com/country-territories-3/2094-china/aluminium-industry/32078-east-hope-baotou-aluminium-smelter
2. Bloomberg: well-established and well-trusted, the info cited is taken from its East Hope profile summary. https://www.bloomberg.com/profiles/companies/EHGCLZ:CH-east-hope-group-co-ltd
3. AluWatch is a major new aluminium industry watchdog consisting of individuals, NGOs, and business seeking to reduce the impact of climate change. It compiles a yearly set of key figures about the most important players in the market, and I used its East Hope figures. http://www.aluwatch.org/key-figures/
4. Forbes provides a highly anticipated list of the world’s billionaires on a yearly basis, from which the cited info about East Hope founder Liu Yongxing was taken. http://www.forbes.com/china-billionaires/list/#tab:overall
5. China.org is the Chinese government’s official news website, which means that the information provided needs to be utilized critically. However, no other news site has provided such an in-depth report of the Liu brothers and their respective enterprises, including East Hope, in English. http://www.china.org.cn/video/2008-10/27/content_16672447.htm
6. 2011 USGS Mineral Yearbook: a primary resource for anything related to minerals, there is barely any other publicly available report with such a range of information on activities of individual companies that would normally be ignored in other publications. https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2011-alumi.pdf
7. Platts: one of the most influential news providers, and market data analyst of natural resource markets. Its Metals Daily series is always the go-to publication for up to date, detailed observations on developments in the industry or individual companies. The same is true for Antaike’s Alumina & Aluminum Monthly, though with a narrower focus on aluminium. Because of East Hope’s prolific activities, the series often features concise articles on the company. The same applies to Antaike’s publications. http://www.antaike.com/uploadfiles/20120619/2012061915421737061.pdf
8. Aluminium Insider is a leading news platform specialized in the aluminium industry, supported by possibly the largest metals news analyst, Metal Bulletin. In a similar vein, Asian Metal stands out because of its interviews with people in the industry and relevant companies, such as in this case, where they interviewed an East Hope manager. http://aluminiuminsider.com/chinas-east-hope-group-to-invest-us1-5-bn-in-inner-mongolia/
9. http://www.asianmetal.com/metal_cron/2015/index_lunshi_wangzaitian_en.shtml
10. Xinhua is the Chinese government’s official press agency, so a critical mind is required, but is generally trustworthy when it comes to reporting government announcements and policy shifts, such as the one quoted in this Xinhua article. Although this article didn’t mention East Hope by name, it still provided relevant information in the context of East Hope’s business. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-06/16/c_135442680.htm
11. China Daily is one of the largest dailies, but with a somewhat broader reporting scope as Xinhua and with a more prominent opinion section. Unlike Xinhua, China Daily reports more often on Chinese companies, including East Hope, which is the focus of the article cited. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/interface/toutiaonew/1020961/2017-04-05/cd_28805896.html
12. Shandong News is a local news site, and since East Hope is operating multiple facilities in that province, it gets good coverage. http://sd.sdnews.com.cn/yw/201704/t20170405_2223916.htm
13. The Jakarta Post is commonly regarded as one of the most credible papers in Indonesia. The article specifically singles out East Hope for adding new capacity, in contrast to what the government demands. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/09/14/china-vows-to-cut-aluminum-output-but-producers-plan-growth-.html
14. All the Chinese Ministry and EPA publications are official documents of acute relevance to East Hope and offer a unique first-hand look into Chinese government action regarding the company’s activities. The level of detail has not been covered in the English-language media. They deal exclusively with East Hope. http://www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201105/t20110526_211199.htm http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201410/t20141028_290801.htm http://www.sdein.gov.cn/zwgk/gclssddqbz/2015/201504yue/201505/t20150513_278400.html http://www.dezhou.gov.cn/n19466299/n19789916/n19789964/n19790088/n19790326/n19790328/n19790344/c25185140/content.html
15. 163/NetEase is a widely read Chinese daily online paper. With the Chinese public becoming increasingly outspoken on the state of the environment, papers like these have become increasingly important in reporting on pollution accurately. Again, East Hope is the focus here. http://henan.163.com/16/1216/14/C8DPC1F302270ILI.html
As this list shows, these sources have a broad reach across both English and Chinese-speaking audiences. I therefore do not follow the reasoning that the notoriety requirements are not satisfied. On the contrary, East Hope, no less because of the controversies surrounding its activities, is clearly very much a part of the public discourse in the context of Chinese metal manufacturers.

To sum up, the sources used are important, verifiable and reputable in their coverage of East Hope. Chinabusiness (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the above was on the article's talk page while it was still a draft. Directory/list entries, mentions, routine coverage, and primary sources do not show notability. My breakdown of those sources:
  1. Directory entry
  2. Directory entry
  3. List entry
  4. East Hope not mentioned
  5. East Hope not mentioned
  6. Mentions only
  7. Brief routine coverage
  8. Routine coverage
  9. Interview (primary)
  10. East Hope not mentioned
  11. No depth of coverage of East Hope
  12. No depth of coverage of East Hope
  13. Mention only
  14. Primary government documents
  15. No depth of coverage of the company
  — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1. Standard directory citation commonly used throughout Wikipedia articles on companies.
    2. Standard directory citation commonly used throughout Wikipedia articles on companies.
    3. Establishes important context that reflects the importance of the company.
    4. East Hope is clearly mentioned, and the reference provides important context on the company, as it establishes the link between its business undertakings and one of China’s richest individuals.
    5. The article is crucial in establishing the family connections between East Hope’s founder and the other large companies run by his siblings, while helping to place the company into the broader socio-economic context of 1980’s China as well.
    6. It still contains crucial information whose inclusion into the article is required, because it clarifies the scale of East Hope’s production and, therefore, provides a means of comparison against its competitors.
    7. This is highly read and authoritative, so the fact that East Hope is included in the brief means that a large audience will be informed on East Hope’s actions.
    8. Covers a major investment of the company, one of its biggest in recent years, making it clearly important information broader general interest.
    9. Interview provided info that established the scale of East Hope’s activities. However, I re-wrote the sentence to clarify where the information came from.
    10. This article is crucial for understanding the controversy surrounding East Hope’s actions. In tune with Wikpedia’s standards, I wanted to provide a citable source on the government’s policy to clearly show what the controversy is.
    11. East Hope is the subject of the title and most of the public concern of illegal med use is directed against East Hope, seeing that it is a major animal feed provider.
    12. See above, plus it has the full list included.
    13. It is a pretty important mention due to it being the largest planned addition of capacity.
    14. Seeing that these are primary government documents detailing the number and scale of East Hope’s infractions, this is vital information. Given that these docs cover major breaches of law, excluding them would mean a breach of Wikipedia’s rules on neutrality. Also, WP:CORPDEPTH does not mention that government documents are inadequate.
    15. The cited article deals exclusively with an accident at one of East Hope’s plants. This is primary coverage of the firm’s activities.
    —Chinabusiness (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because something is or can be used as a reference for something, does not mean that it can be used to establish notability. Based on the above, you do not understand the difference. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot judge the depth of coverage in Chinese sources, but it seems a sufficiently large company that it is likely to be notable. Given the WP:Cultural bias is sourcing, I think we should accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't read through chinese sources either but I had spent some time figuring out notability on the article when it was at afc. I gave it the go through when I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I believe that WP:CORPDEPTH should not be valid here as a criteria for deletion. If still in doubt, we could request translation of chinese sources (as machine translation isn't reliable). Yashovardhan (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You've provided no policy based reason to keep the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [73], [74].--Antigng (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first looks like routine finances reporting. The second one is an opinion piece. Also, there isn't an article on zhwiki. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The first report discusses the establishment and the projects of the company in detail, and if it were an routine reporting, it would only contain the paragraph four. The second one does have some personal opinions which should be treated as primary sources, but it also includes detailed analysis on the company's history and goals. Also, whether there's an corresponding entry on zhwiki is irrelevant. --Antigng (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Asian Music[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. 3 gnews hits. 2 of them merely refer to the museum at end of article as other museums worth visiting nothing in gbooks, gscholar. museums are not inherently notable. nothing in bbc.co.uk either. Those arguing keep must provide evidence of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:14, 14 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishhya (film)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Only sources are databases; no independent coverage from reliable sources establishing notability. JTtheOG (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:13, 14 April 2017 (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 Standing Rules of the United States Senate. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XXIII[edit]

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

Not notable outside of Standing Rules of the United States Senate. Not enough info to merit its own article. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Standing Rules of the United States Senate, which could use some expansion. bd2412 T 04:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep or merge; if kept, rename to privilege of the floor of the United States Senate). It's a stub and does need expansion, but the "privilege of the floor" of the Senate has a long history and adequate discussion in sources, e.g.:

Precedents Relating to the Privileges of the Senate of the United States (1893 Senate report)

Selected Privileges and Courtesies Extended to Former Members of Congress (2014 Congressional Research Service report briefly discussing floor privileges extended to former senators, with exceptions for lobbyists, and exceptions to exceptions)

Riddick 1992) - Floyd M. Riddick's commentary on privileges of the floor of the Senate)

Senate historical website: discussing long history of topic: "The matter of Senate Chamber floor access for non-members has provoked controversy for as long as there has been a Senate Chamber. ..." --Neutrality^talk 04:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge until it has been expanded enough to support an article? bd2412 T 11:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've revised my vote to "keep or merge." Neutrality^talk 16:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Concurrent esta[reply]

Keep The article needs to be expanded, but I see no need to merge. I'm fine with renaming too. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep/Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possibly expand if needed in the future, but see no need to delete. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BD2412. This article gives no real information about what the content of the rule is. It would be better if the article Standing Rules of the United States Senate summarized the content of the rules rather than just listing their titles. If there are rules that require full articles to describe their content and implications, those can be broken out separately later. But this article consists at present of only two sentences of uninformative prose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Song Weilong (actor/model)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR as all films/TV shows are insignificant, and fails WP:GNG due to lack of available reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 16:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found at least China's official news agency Xinhua reporting about him and China Daily re-reporting. Some weak indication of notability IMO. His Weibo also shows a few million followers... Jake Brockman (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update.

Thanks for your guidance and support, I'm still working on the text and retouching part for this page (Wiki-en:Song Weilong (actor/model)), definitely going to find some noticeable evidences for his career and the upcoming works (TV series, movies, covers of fashion magazines etc.).

Actually, I'd like to see this page on the first site of Google Search for "Song Weilong", because the Chinese Google Search results and the Chinese Wikipedia page (Wiki-zh:宋威龙) both leads to this actor/model person, not the speed skater person (宋伟龙), just lack of translation work.

Besides, the Chinese Wiki page for the skater Song Weilong (宋伟龙) is not even created (Search 宋伟龙 in Chinese Wiki), so in the first place I was considering whether to substitute the pages, and set the model as the main page, plus one disambiguation page, but the system said the skater page has an upper level. The Fact is, that the younger is more famous than the skater for now in China.

An other fact is, according to the Baidu Baike page [75], the skater already changed his name to Song Jinhan (宋金翰), and retired from his career, started a personal life as modified car company owner or technician [source: https://kknews.cc/sports/xz6y5q.html date: 2016-05-06 publisher: Ice World Sport]. Thus, I would glad to update his page as well if needed.

In addition, the actor's Sina Weibo account has almost 2 Million followers Weibo Homepage, and the Google image search results of "Song Weilong" are also mainly the pics of the model, not the skater Google Images.

Sokkwo (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sokkwo, if this article survives AfD, you could use WP:RM to request a move. Who is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not relevant to this discussion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem to add up to WP:GNG. The article was taken to AfD the same day it was created, I think it just needed more work. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update Boleyn, how to determine if the debates end and whether the discussion is completed? Thank you. Technically I don't know how to remove the AfD Message, I'm not sure if I could.

The essential problem is, the Google result looks messy and very confusing since a long time, because the Wiki page leads directly to the speed skater person, and the right sidebar of Google shows the information of the skater (profession, height, age), but with the pictures of the model screenshot of Google page, which come out from Google image search engine.

Basically everything on the Google page beside this very first Wiki linkage, are about the model, not the skater.

For the current status, I don't think it's a final result or best solution for this problem, I still suggest that we separate the name into to two terms, if can not put the model on the dominant position for now, then just create a redirection page of "Song Weilong" to the "Song Weilong (disambiguation)", so everybody searched the word on Wiki can check the both pages, and not get confused with the other.

For example, redirect the search of "Song Weilong" to disambiguation page for the two people
- Song Weilong (speed skater)
- Song Weilong (actor/model)

And it also has a very big influence on Google search engine result. This is why at this moment people can only view the skater's Wiki in Google search result, that is already a serious mistake.

If we don't add the assumption of (skater) behind the name, it will be very confusing. People kept asking me why Google shows the model person is 27 years old, which is not, he is 18. And the skater has changed his last name to Song Jinhan, not Song Weilong anymore, so far I learned from internet news pages. It could be a permanent misleading page of the Google-Wiki system. In the long-term, the model just started his career late 2015 and has more than six upcoming works, on the other hand, Song Jinhan is retired from skating on national team. Therefore, I wish you can reconsider it and make further suggestions. Best regards.

Otherwise, we can use

or

Sokkwo (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After one week of discussion, an admin will count the results of votes for deletion and for keeping and make a final decision. Once this happened, the deletion tag will be removed from the article or the article will still be deleted. How something "looks" on a Google search is not a primary concern, if at all. WP is an encyclopaedia and not a marketing or search engine optimization tool! With regards to the two individuals with the same name, I'm not convinced that the skater changed his name. A Baidu profile is not sufficient evidence. I don't think "kknews" or any blog is sufficiently reliable. On the contrary, the Chinese Olympic Committee reports about him and lists him under Song Weilong, as he will be listed on medal and participant tables in western media. Therefore, this can only be solved by referencing the disambiguation at the top of each article. Jake Brockman (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sokkwo, don't worry about page titles for now, one thing at a time. If this survives this discussion, you can go to WP:RM and editors will help you establish what should be done with the page titles. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough in sources since added that it passes WP:GNG Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No discussion, but failing WP:V is a pretty big problem. Sandstein 13:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politika 187[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Looked at this about 8 times. Tried to find all the papers. Can't identify Politika187 site. Cant find it at all. All there is, is the Twitter page. Originating editor need to come in and provide additional references. Fails WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Hammer (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unreleased game that is lacking significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in independent reliable sources found. Clearly fails WP:NVG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any sources or reliable coverage for this game. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 18 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaliy Danylenko[edit]

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

Non-notable politician?. Most of the coverage is of a school he is associated with. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kiev is certainly a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors would clear WP:NPOL #2 if they were sourced properly, but it's not a position that exempts him from having to pass WP:GNG for it. This is referenced almost entirely to primary sources and YouTube videos rather than to reliable source coverage in media — and, for added bonus, it's written like somebody tried (badly) to convert his résumé into prose rather than like an actual encyclopedia article. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR database on which every local politician is entitled to an article just because he exists; reliable source coverage must be present to support an article. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Si Fang[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. She seems to fail WP:CREATIVE. No reviews of her work as a poet are presented. As a translator she won a very minor Polish prize "NAGRODA PRACY ORGANICZNEJ IM. MARII KONOPNICKIEJ", about which I cannot find much information ([76]); it also does not have any page on Polish Wikipedia (which is much more inclusive, and which one would expect to have articles about all significant awards in Poland - not that this is an argument here, just another minor red flag). The only hope to save this is if someone can dig reviews of her poetry (or other awards) in Chinese, but as far as English (and Polish) sources go, I am afraid she is not shown to be notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved the page to Zhao Si (poet). Not sure where the "Fang" came from, she's mentioned as Zhao Si throughout the article. Zhao Si in Chinese appears to be "赵四". Timmyshin (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Cuba[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. gnews refers to "Casa cuba" in a different context not this gallery. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This a Cuban cultural initiative in Malaysia. It is similar to Canada house in London, but a lot less notable and famous. I did find several decent refs and added them. The organization is real, the refs and notability are real but not extremely strong. I am not sure how it hurts Wikipedia to keep the article. It might actually provide a minimal service to readers. If kept it should be renamed to Casa Cuba (Malacca) or (Malaysia) as there are other Casa Cubas (e.g. I saw refs for one in Tampa).198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When people argue to keep it "it is a lot less notable" than other institutions, this means it is not notable and does not pass our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cuba–Malaysia relations The content and image is covered at Cuba–Malaysia_relations#Cultural_exchange. The gallery is otherwise not independently notable for a standalone article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google " "Casa Cuba" Malaysia -wikipedia" yields several hits, including an Arab Today article and a The Star article from 2011 and 2016. Article has been expanded during this AFD, and could be expanded more from sources, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Renaming the article to add a disambiguating phrase "(Malaysia)" or otherwise may be appropriate, but "Keep" decision is compatible. Renaming can be done by any editor after AFD closes, or put to a Requested Move at the Talk page of the article. --do ncr am 19:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a more clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per doncram. L3X1 (distant write) 14:36, 14 April 2017 (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 and redirect to Live action role-playing game. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Live-action wargame[edit]

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

Search found no independent notability, so this fails WP:GNG, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle gaming. These articles seem to discuss identical (or at least extremely similar) subjects and "battle gaming" appears to be the more common and popular term. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Live action role-playing game - The article is complete original research that tries to explain a topic that fails WP:NEO. It goes on to be confusing as the start is almost like it's a video game and moves on to explain more about a Live action role-playing game, hence why it should not be merged but just a redirect. - Pmedema (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at the very least, Redirect to LARP. Searches bring up nearly nothing, and the few things that do come up are not from reliable sources. Most of them are nothing but announcements of upcoming events, and many of them seem to be using the term synonymous to regular LARPing. The article was created well over a decade ago, and the fact that no sources have really been created in that time span leads me to believe that this was nothing more than a WP:NEOLOGISM that never became a thing. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a more clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to LARP seems to be the best move here. L3X1 (distant write) 14:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no point in preserving article history as the page consists entirely of unsourced original research. Once deleted, the name can be redirected at editorial discretion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Live action role-playing game. BOZ (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2017 (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) L3X1 (distant write) 02:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hafu[edit]

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

Unnotable gamer. Shares name with more common other thing. No news articles, and sources at the bottom aren't really reliable. L3X1 (distant write) 03:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 10:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few returns in the WP:VG/RS search [77], a number of which appear at first-glance to be in-depth. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per NBC News, PC Gamer, SK Gaming, Fusion, and Game Spot. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources above. Especially the NBC one, which is probably one of the most mainstream reliable sources in existence, and is very long and dedicated entirely to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG per SL93's sources. Have also reverted the deletion of most of the article's prose (courtesy ping). Fuebaey (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in the article indicate notability, but it needs a bit of work on the prose, and some of the sources could be replaced with more reliable ones (though AfD isn't cleanup). Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article should be WP:HISTSPLIT to something like Hafu (video game player) if it is kept. The concept of Hāfu, where this page name used to redirect, is certainly more important (and no doubt inspired Hafu's chosen name). --Izno (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2017 (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. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intensify[edit]

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

Article about an album that has not met any notability criteria for albums and recordings. - TheMagnificentist 11:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the assumption that the claim to hit #61 in the UK album charts can be verified by a source such as British Hit Singles & Albums Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is verified by the UK Official Charts Company Bennv3771 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have too many non-notable albums like this cluttering up our name space. Andrew D. (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:17, 14 April 2017 (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 06:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Shea[edit]

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

Non-notable songwriter. The content I've checked so far mainly fails verification and I am unable to find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources as would be required to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:17, 14 April 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) f e minist 14:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of scattering experiments[edit]

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

Discussed briefly at WT:PHYS - concerns are that it is too broad and the term too ambiguous. Basically, almost every experiment in particle physics would be on this list. This would be better served as a category (or a slight modification of existing ones). Primefac (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No rationale for existence. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Per WP:LISTPURP, lists have three main purposes: to provide information; assist navigation and aid development. Andrew D. (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN as entire books are written about such experiments, e.g. Perfect/Complete Scattering Experiments; Experimental Neutron Scattering; High Energy Nucleon-nucleon Scattering Experiments at Berkeley; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable examples to Scattering and delete. I agree with the nom that the criterion is too broad. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger and deletion are incompatible – see WP:MAD. Andrew D. (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curses, foiled again [twirls moustache]. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, it's too broad. To respond to Andrew D's point, entire books are written about tiny subsets of all scattering experiments. An analogy would be if someone proposed "list of historical people". One could also say truthfully that "entire books are written about such people", for example any history book. That fact doesn't address the complaint that the list is too broad. --Steve (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Too broad" is not an issue for either policy or practise. For example, we already have List of experiments, which is more general. We also have plenty of other very general list names including list of people; list of books; list of places; &c. Such large lists are typically structured as a hierarchy and so that would be a sensible approach for experiments too. If scattering experiments are divided into different classes then we can continue the hierarchy as needed. Lists are quite flexible in their construction and that's why, per WP:CLN, they have many advantages over categories. Andrew D. (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made a telling error by omitting the s in lists of people, lists of books, lists of places. All three of these are lists of lists, which is appropriate for extraordinarily broad categories. I would not be opposed to a list of lists of scattering experiments, if we already had a bunch of appropriate sub-lists like "list of resonant x-ray scattering experiments", "list of spin-polarized heavy ion scattering experiments", etc. etc. As for list of experiments, I think it's a terrible page and I would support deleting that too. We shouldn't refrain from deleting one bad page just because there are other equally bad pages out there. --Steve (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While Steve doesn't like the broad list of experiments, we should note that it is rated "High Importance" by the History of Science WikiProject. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is rated "High Importance" by the History of Science WikiProject... So what? Even Steve is wrong and list of experiments falls 100% within the guidelines, it does not follow that the list of scattering experiments should be kept as well. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - In many cases, I think lists better serve our readers than categories and this could be one such case. The breadth of types of scattering experiments is such that the scattering and scattering theory pages do not give much coverage to individual experiments. Providing an annotated list of experiments would give readers a different view with a different kind of specificity than the broader articles (yes, this is a version of ILIKEIT, but it is also an explanation of why I think the list is encyclopedic). I also agree that listing in this way is not OR, as there are RS as Andrew D points out that give similar lists. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – It looks a little better when split between specific experiments and general categories thereof, but I wouldn't be heartbroken to see it go. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I expanded and structured the page somewhat, so now it looks to me like a decent stub. XOR'easter (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on previously responses, and my own knowledge that scattering experiments are significant. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Studio C Recurring Characters and Sketches[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All the references are the TV company's own web-site. No evidence that this mish-mash has any intrinsic value let alone notability. Fails WP:GNG by a mile. The compilation of such a list is original research as there is no evidence that the title is in any sense notable Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same information already appears in the article Studio C. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a particularly notable subject, and the sources being used are nothing but the episodes of the series itself, and as mentioned, the information here is already included in its entirely in the main Studio C article, making this an unnecessary WP:FORK. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wildgirl[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP by SPA/COI subject lacks notability including failing WP:GNG Rayman60 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage in available sources to establish notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2017 (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 Red Velvet (band). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeri (singer)[edit]

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

Fails notability, not individually notable outside of Red Velvet (band) Snowflake91 (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone comments on whether she fails WP:MUSICBIO? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that subject meets #2 of WP:MUSICBIO, as a member of Red Velvet (band). ValarianB (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That doesnt apply to members, in that case every single member of any band/group in the world could have its own article, the person needs to be individually notable (i.e. have notable solo work) outside of group, number #2 on that criteria makes Red Velvet notable, and not all their members. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. She doesn't have notability outside Red Velvet. Everything mentioned is the usual, early days type of commentary. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as an individual performer and celebrity, rather than simply as one of the members of Red Velvet (band), in the same manner as members of other performing groups, such as Spice Girls, achieved celebrity as individuals. Yeri (singer) has entries for herself, as an individual, in Spanish Wikipedia {here}, Korean Wikipedia {here}, Armenian Wikipedia {here}, Indonesian Wikipedia {here}, Portuguese Wikipedia {here}, Russian Wikipedia {here}, Turkish Wikipedia {here}, Vietnamese Wikipedia {here} and Chinese Wikipedia {here}. Every one of these articles has a photograph (different photograph for each article), an infobox and a write-up, confirming that her notability is world-wide. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a reason to keep, why does it matter if she has a stub article with a picture on other Wikipedias, where inclusion standards vary from country to country? She fails all 12 points at WP:MUSICBIO, so totally not relevant reason to keep, you didnt provide a source for a claim "Clearly notable as an individual performer and celebrity", she has no individual songs, she has not been casted as an actress, and everytime you're gonna search her name on google it will be red-velvet related stuff. Look at Talk:Myoui Mina, Talk:Im Nayeon, and Talk:Momo Hirai, those members are just like Yeri with no solo works (and they are currently much more popular in Korea), and the articles were easily merged into their group's article. And all Spice Girls members are clearly notable independently from the group with their solo musical releases / television and film appearances, so the argument is very poor. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:MUSICBIO has been mentioned, it should be noted that the guideline it expresses is almost a side issue in this case. While subject is well known as a member of a singing group, she is also a bona fide international celebrity whose image has appeared on magazine covers and entertainment sections of newspapers in the manner of other international celebrities such as Paris Hilton or the Kardashian sisters who have become "famous for being famous", without even possessing subject's performing talents. She has hosted a TV show, appears without other members of Red Velvet on talk and variety programs and has extended entries in ten Wikipedias, including those from the world's major languages (all with photos and infobox), with a majority of the articles also including a discography and career details. Of course, WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, but we are not serving Wikipedia users in a helpful manner if a celebrity who has carved out an individual presence in the entertainment industry is redirected to a mention in a group article. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there are articles on other wikipedias is because of WP:Fancruft, the fans feels an urge to create a stub article just because they can, and again inclusion standards for notability differs here, on English Wikipedia, then on Korean, Vietnamese, Indonesian etc. wikis. The only solo work she has is co-hosting a TV show for 6 months, but only that is not enough to pass notability criterias. And please dont compare Hilton or Kardashian with Yeri, they easily pass general WP:GN since there are "billions" of news reports about them, while Yeri is pretty much never mentioned as a solo member anywhere. Just google "Kim Yeri" and choose "news", the only results you get is some yellow tabloid news like This and This, not to mention that both websites are listed as unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point some relevant questions may be warranted regarding this nomination. Since Red Velvet (band) has five members, why was the nomination not structured as a multiple redirect for all five? An examination of the articles for the other four members of Red Velvet — Irene (singer), Seulgi (singer), Wendy (singer) and Joy (singer) — confirms that there are no proposed deletion or redirect tags on any of their articles. Is there a waiting period to discover if this nomination succeeds before proceeding with one-by-one nominations of the remaining four members? Is there a contention that this member of Red Velvet is the sole non-notable member of the group and is therefore undeserving of an individual English Wikipedia entry in the manner of the other four members? Since the group has only five members, a WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS argument regarding the other four members would seem to be too broad to encompass the seemingly random choice of this group member for nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All other four members are notable (Irene and Joy passes acting notability for having a lead role in a TV drama/series, while Wendy and Seulgi have solo musical releases which charted on Gaon Chart). Snowflake91 (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, the answer to a key question above, "Is there a contention that this member of Red Velvet is the sole non-notable member of the group and is therefore undeserving of an individual English Wikipedia entry in the manner of the other four members?" is supposed to be accepted as "Yes". Nine brother/sister Wikipedias contend that she is sufficiently notable to warrant an individual entry, but English Wikipedia, which has higher standards than Russian, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese or other Wikipedias, would insist that Red Velvet is composed of four notable and one non-notable member. Whether such insistence is based solely on WP:MUSICBIO or if other standards of notability, such as celebrity on an international scale, should also be taken into consideration, may be left to decide by other contributors to this discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out that this page has actually been already deleted/redirected once --> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeri (singer), its true that this afd is 1 year old, but she gained no extra notability since then. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - If keep, move Kim Yeri to Yeri (singer) (current page move request). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Velvet (band); not independently notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot mentioning redirect, if the afd passes, it NEEDS to be redirected and NOT deleted, I copyedited the page and added more refs, so when she gets notable enough, we can simply restore the content instead of creating the whole page from scratch. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red Velvet (band); deletion just creates a baitlink in red and we will be doing this again in six months. I also fail to see why someone didn't just boldly redirect this in the first place instead of the AfD, but maybe they did...? Montanabw^(talk) 08:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Velvet (band); no evidence of individual notability - single hosting gigs that most idols go through isn't enough for substantial notability out of the group. Evaders99 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2017 (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 Books of Swords. Content is fully retained in the page history for anyone who wishes to perform a proper merge. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Swords of Power[edit]

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

Non notable topic about artifacts in a fantasy series. There are no independent, reliable sources and the article is written like an opinion essay. Ciridae (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My goodness, it just goes on and on and on. Encyclopedia should not be a repository of fan material, reliable sources do not discuss the details of this fictional world. ValarianB (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Books of Swords. This is just a whole lot of plot-only WP:CRUFT with no non-primary sources supporting any of the information. Searches also bring up no reliable sources discussing the swords either, as only fan sites and fan wikis mention them. Merging is unnecessary, as the swords are already mentioned in the book series main article, and this amount of unsourced cruft would not improve that article in any way if merged into it. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delele - Fails reliable sources, notability. Fan page. WP:CRUFT. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Books of Swords. Does not have any indication of notability to warrant its own article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete/Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge Some possible RS'es: [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], but I'm finding the commentary doesn't really focus on the swords themselves in any way that would require (or benefit from) an article separate from the series'. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't really see the benefit of a Merge in this case, as none of those sources really say anything about the swords themselves that isn't already included in the main Books of Swords article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect or merge is fine my me, for the record. Keeping information in some manner is always preferable. ValarianB (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but in summarized form. I agree that there's no need for this level of detail on Wikipedia, but the current version of the Books of Swords article doesn't list the individual swords either. Replacing the current redirect to this page with a list of each sword and a 1-2 sentence description of its powers, or a table with powers and drawbacks should be sufficient. --Bobson (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Rakkas Crew[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Only newslistings are blogs and zines; fails WP:NORG. Even then, the references are passing and in no way in depth; this lack of WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage = failure to meet WP:GNG. — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a band, not a company, so the notability standard it has to clear is WP:NMUSIC, not WP:NORG — and at least in theory, they do have a nominal pass of NMUSIC #8 for having garnered a Polaris Music Prize nomination. Granted, that can still be not enough for an article if they prove entirely unsourceable besides nominal confirmation of that fact itself — but I'm withholding judgement as of yet because nominator clearly measured the topic against the wrong notability standard, so the sources will have to be reviewed a second time since NMUSIC is a different test. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not so simple as to whether this is a band or a company, it appears. They seem to be both a record label/studio and a group of affiliated artists that the label/studio hosts. If they were clearly one or the other, then there would not be enough under the applicable SNG's to consider keeping. As it is, however, I think we have to consider them under both WP:NCOMPANY and WP:NMUSIC. Using that standard, I still don't believe that there is enough significant coverage or that the prongs of NMUSIC are satisfied, with the possible exception of #5. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources & original research / fan page. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2017 (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. Doing our own analysis of satellite imagery to determine the status of the project doesn't make for the strongest of arguments, but there's clearly no consensus for deletion here. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jinshajiang Jin'an Bridge[edit]

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

There has been some debate at Talk:Jinshajiang Jin'an Bridge over whether this article should exist. It is about a bridge which has yet to be constructed and very few reliable sources seem to be available. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Glabb, Andrewa, Timmyshin, ShakyIsles, Zhangzj cet, TonyBallioni, Amakuru, and George Ho: pinging everyone who commented at the move discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC) @HighestBridges: may have further info.[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources yet provided even state that the bridge is planned. There is lots of politically funded material on the web, but that is all, and we might think of blacklisting at least one of the references given. This bridge may well happen, but it may not. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a strong keep, but this bridge is clearly under construction and will be significantly notable. The article just needs some better sources, possibly Chinese-language if necessary. --NoGhost (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that it is under construction? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question actually. I initially interpreted this article to mean it was u/c, but it doesn't actually state so. Interested to hear if there are other sources. --NoGhost (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most info I could find is [83], but not a RS. If you assume it is accurate (note it was created recently in 2017), it says nothing about construction - it's all forward looking. At least the nearby Jinanqiao Dam is real. Can't find anything on the Huali expressway that it's supposed to carry either. Also note that it is listed in Bridges and tunnels across the Yangtze River without a source where it says it is opening in 2018, another indication it isn't happening as planned as the source above says opening in 2021. WP:TOOSOON. MB 05:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is definitely notable and from google imagery, it is definitely under construction. I fixed inconsistencies that were from when it is was Taku Bridge. ShakyIsles (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ShakyIsles' mention of Google satellite view confirmation that it is under construction is significant. Discussion above can be interpreted to mean it was once planned for 2021 but is advanced to 2018. Wikipedia needs to try to keep up with major infrastructure in China. --do ncr am 02:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The delete arguments centered about it not being clearly under construction; since it is per Google satellite view, they should be disregarded. LuizdeO (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are some research papers on this planned bridge. ([84] [85]) --Antigng (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: where is this Google satellite imagery, because I am unable to find it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to the scope of zh:丽攀高速公路. This bridge is part of a partially complete highway; the highway does not have an article on the English Wikipedia. Judging by the (Chinese-language) sources on the Chinese Wikipedia article, there should be sufficient coverage. f e minist 15:36, 21 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda Neat[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast. WP:WEB Brianga (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big hits on the odd video seem to be down to the artist and not the channel. KaisaL (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SBS Transit (Trains)[edit]

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

Content already present at the main article SBS Transit and does not need to be duplicated here. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - Delete the content at SBS Transit, Add {{mainarticle|SBS Transit (Trains)}} to SBS transit and try to source this article (I'd imagine there's tons of Malay, Mandarin and Tamil sources on the subject). –Davey2010^Talk 14:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough, more cites needed although not a reason to delete. Agree with User:Davey2010's suggestion. Ismoi38 (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2017 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Lodge Books[edit]

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

Non-notable company. A WP:BEFORE search brings up only their hompage as a source. A more general search indicates their only claims of notability are insufficient: self-sourced, Facebook, trade directories and Yellowpages, Twitter ads, and sources that are otherwise non-independent of the subject [86]. No WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage: fails both WP:GNG and more specifically WP:NORG. Let alone WP:PROMO. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a recent new publishing firm, where the provided references are start-up coverage, including what is visible of the paywalled item. The coverage falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH and the bronze award for cover design of one of their first books does not imply notability for the firm. AllyD (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam; appears to be part of a walled garden which also includes Jerusalem Ablaze: Stories of Love and Other Obsessions, created by the same contributor. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small publisher of literary novels that "launched" in February 2017 with a book , linked in article, that did indeed get reviewed. Also, yes, it is probably PROMO by publisher or author, but it is also reliably, albeit sparsely, sourced, and is clearly being taken seriously by the industry.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Independent Music Awards[edit]

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

Improperly sourced article about a minor local award of little to no wider interest. This is referenced almost entirely to the award's own primary source website about itself, some of the winning artists' own primary source websites about themselves, and non-notable blogs — and the only two things here that actually qualify as reliable sources, the Barrie Examiner and Sudbury Living, are coverage of individual musicians in the recipients list rather than coverage of the awards per se. There's simply not the depth of coverage being shown to get this over WP:GNG — and the notability claim being made on the talk page in response to a prior prod attempt, that they're notable because there are some artists who won a TIMA early in their careers and then later went on to become notable somebodies with Wikipedia articles, is a transparent failure of notability is not inherited. High schools could claim notability for their own internal student achievement awards if "somebody who won this once eventually became famous" were a valid notability claim in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotionalism on an unremarkable subject; article exists to list the largely nn acts. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2017 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the lack of input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Kostic[edit]

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

The General Notability Guideline is not met by this film director/producer etc. There are a huge amount of false positives, it appears to be a common name, but the sources about this person do not exceed the types seen in the article - i.e. passing mentions of his work, next to nothing about him. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:49, 14 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Dynasty[edit]

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

This article seems to miss WP:GNG. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:36, 14 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Ants[edit]

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

Band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable sourcing to support it. They released three EPs before breaking up but no full-length albums, and the only references cited in the article are to a directory and a blog, not reliable sources. While this cherrypicks quotes from EP reviews in an advertorial manner, those aren't sourced at all. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they existed; passage of a specific NMUSIC criterion must be reliably sourced for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per several source searches, does not meet WP:GNG and finding no evidence of WP:BAND being met. In my searches, I found this short article from Now, but this is not significant coverage, and not finding anything else to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 21 April 2017 (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 userfy. Article moved without leaving redirect to User:Savvymcc/Gabbie Hanna. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbie Hanna[edit]

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

Non notable web personality with only one decent source, no indepth coverage. Being nominated for the teen choice awards is not enough for notability. GuzzyG (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails simplest standards of notability Cllgbksr (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just wanted to drop a note that this is part of a student assignment with Wiki Ed, so if all else fails I would like to have this sent to the student's userspace so that they can work on improving it and having a copy for grading. We will try to work on it during the AfD, of course. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to student draftspace for class Article subject is not notable. Fails WP:GNG. As an editor stated above, this is basically a one source article, but just does not cross threshold of notability. Antonioatrylia (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace; not notable yet, but the student shouldn't have their work deleted outright if it was part of their class grade (trout to the instructor for approving such a superficial subject, though). Montanabw^(talk) 08:14, 16 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Nussey[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable sourcing to support it. The only notability claim even being attempted here is that she's won awards at the Toronto Independent Music Awards and the Northern Ontario Music and Film Awards, neither of which are major enough to satisfy NMUSIC #8 -- but take those claims out, and literally all that's left here is "she exists". And apart from two pieces of purely local media coverage in her own hometown -- which would be fine if the rest of the sourcing around them were more solid, but cannot carry WP:GNG by themselves as the only valid sources in the article -- this is otherwise parked entirely on primary sources that cannot carry notability at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but nothing here now is enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:34, 14 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darz (artist)[edit]

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

Rapper with no evidence of notability. Refs are all blogs, very minor entries or sales sites. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:33, 14 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Left[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and appears to be largely comprised of original research and trivial information. A search for sources shows little from RS on this specific group/publication, and much on homosexuals in leftist movements not specific to this organization. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to find sources on "Gay Left" (the organisation/publication) rather than "gay left" (leftist politics amongst LGB people), but there are a few hits. This article is on the general term "gay left", but the section on Gay Marxism has a few paragraphs specifically on the Gay Left collective. I don't have access to this chapter, but it looks like it might be promising. The article Interrante, Joseph (1978). "Gay Left". Radical History Review. 19. is a review of the journal. There's also this introduction to the journal, but it's at best arguable that it is independent enough to count towards the GNG. Nonetheless, I think there might be just enough to keep this as notable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this very helpful in reading about grassroots LGBTQ literature from the 1970s. The "Gay Left's" website does not have as useful information as this page does, and it is useful for researchers. Stephen.wegman (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC) - — Stephen.wegman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given this publication was in existence before the internet it will always be harder to find sources. However those found above are certainly looking promising. AusLondonder (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thinly sourced and lacks reliable independent secondary sourcing, fails to meet the simplest of WP standards to establish notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain (but leaning toward "delete and re-create") - I found sources making some hints of notability - Gay men and the Left in post-war Britain. However, reader's guide says it's part of the "Gay Left Collective" and/or "Gay Marxist Group", a defunct organization. So do other sources: [87][88][89]. Somehow, the Gay Left Collective is more notable than this publication: [90][91]. More on Google Books. George Ho (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a detailed book review in JSTOR about the Gay Left Collective, the book is Gay Men and Left in Post-War Britain - as the publication of a notable group, and for its historical and social significance, I think the subject is notable and could be expanded by someone with a special interest. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per RS. Also, some contributors are notable, which gives it more legitimacy.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JStuStudios[edit]

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

An unremarkable YouTube channel; sources are tabloid-like and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Part of a walled-garden which also includes equally nn Justin Stuart & Andrew Scites; both are currently at AfD. Please see:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Stuart

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent refs of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, JStuStudios is defiantly notable as you find many resources on the news exactly like other YouTubers such as Jack Vale and Roman Atwood. Mjbmr (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- the articles referenced above (which were created by the "Keep" voter at this AfD) have been recently deleted, along with ThatWasEpic. Please see:

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheKompany[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The company is not notable and no reliable sources are available for the subject of the article. Daylen (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like one person's consulting web site? Note there are a bunch of other enterprises with similar names, such as a wine bar in Illinois, and a small film company in LA. W Nowicki (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Gering[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Seems to have only had a series of guest spots, and there's very little assertion of notability in the article. AniMate 04:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally fails GNG, neither source is reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (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 List of Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venda Wikipedia[edit]

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

Obviously fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG, as show by this Google News search. Redirect to List of Wikipedias. J 947^{^{^(c)}} 04:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one Google web search results entry. Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (web) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox490 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias as a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). Source searches are not providing any significant coverage in RS; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 21 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beep Media Player[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No notability and one trivial source were shown in the 2009 AfD. SL93 (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not temporary, even if the project itself is dead was the previous argument. Unfortunately there is a lack of independent sources to suggest this claim. We can't WP:IGNORE WP:GNG as keeping this will in no way improve Wikipedia or help the average reader. Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious extended encyclopedia apparently, I'd like to see Encyclopædia Britannica include this article in their latest edtion :). Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:53, 17 April 2017 (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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion G3. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 21:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boo 2! A Madea Halloween[edit]

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

Hoax. All of the references are for the first film. JDDJS (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Friends of Broadway[edit]

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

Sources are only local news, does not seem to have received the breadth of coverage necessary to make it notable. Creator had a COI and is now blocked from editing for sockpuppeting. KDS4444 (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good faith search isn't turning up reliable sources that show notability for this group.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Hammel[edit]

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

None of the references included here come from appropriate sources to verify a notability claim. It looks like she was mentioned in a US News & World Report article here but I was not able to review the actual article to see the extent of coverage. Other than this, Google Books is a dead end, Google news turns up a single trivial mention and nothing else, am not seeing enough to make a notability argument here. KDS4444 (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jiggerypipery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I found no notability for this band per WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The result was keep in the 2006 AfD because of an album review and per a guideline that doesn't exist on WP:BAND anymore. SL93 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They supposedly have two albums, which is one criteria of WP:BAND, provided they're on a real label. But they're not: Amazon has one, The Drift, but it is on the Jiggerypipery label. Discogs.com has not heard of them. So, not looking good. There is this review, but it's from some obscure site, and its the same one that was used to rescue them back in 2006. And that's it; I can't find anything else beyond passing mentions. They have 752 GHits, down from 1,450 GHits in 2006... ouch. Simon Crowe was in the band, and he has an article, if that matters, which it really doesn't. There's nothing there. They do have a MySpace page. Herostratus (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2017 (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Beckeld[edit]

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

THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH SOME OF THE PROFESSIONAL CREDITS OF THE AUTHOR. Natacha Berling 01:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable Volunteer1234 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepdent sources about him to show he passes GNG. Merely writting works is not enough to pass either the author or academic criteria, and there is no indepcation the works are impactful enough for him to pass either of those criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The additions do not show indepdent coverage of Beckeld in reliable sources. They merely show he exists and writes and his works are available for purchase, this is not enough to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Natacha Berling — Natacha Berling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sources are independent and reliable. They are. Happy Easter dear John.Natacha Berling
- I challenge you to name even one source here that is from an indepdent, reliable source that provides indepth coverage of Beckeld. I will give one example. One source is a report that Beckeld is going to give a lecture on a subject. Generally what amounts to ads disguised as news for a lecture do not show notability. Beyond this, it is published in Madison Patch, part of Patch.com, a "local and hyper local" news platform that does not meet the requirements of a reliable source as far as I can tell. This is bascially a PR piece for an upcoming lecture in an extremely local publication. This is not the stuff notability is made of. Nor are listings of his works in directories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your comment about the lecture, I did choose this humble reference among others to illustrate his volunteering experience in Namibia. I start to wonder what kind of interests you pursue in insisting on deleting this page even though there are clear evidences of the relevance of this page here. His notability is demonstrated in the various references. I could have added more, I do not think it is necessary. His work is very good and smart for what I read, and I do believe he deserves this page. I disagree with your opinion but I do respect it. Peace. Administrators will decide then. All best. Natacha Berling

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find a single cite of his work on GS. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The only one of his three supposed books that is even listed by Worldcat is his Ph.D. dissertation, writing a Ph.D. dissertation does not make one notable, and there seems little else here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2017 (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 Anglophone South School District. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touchstone Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed: Non-notable elementary school.Dean Esmay (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anglophone South School District as a likely search topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2017 (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 Anglophone North School District. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Fox Elementary School (Bathurst, New Brunswick)[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Prod was redirected to school district, as per customary practice, but redirect was reverted as well. So here we are. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per reason User: One! gave. Knox490§§ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A completely unsourced article about an elementary school. Not only does the school appear not to be notable, the article does not even make a credible claim of its significance. The school clearly exists http://tfes.nbed.nb.ca/ so the original redirect to the school district was the correct action and it should be restored. Meters (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Meters and longstanding practice. John from Idegon (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we would need to delete all primary schools in, say, Category:Elementary schools in Arizona and Category:Middle schools in Arizona in order to be consistent. I'm unsure we want to do that. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spem Reduxit (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment - yes that is the consensus, that elementary schools, unlike secondary schools, are not notable simply by existing. Each elementary school must individually pass WP:GNG, which this one clearly doesn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the addition of two news articles and a picture, the wiki now meets WP:N guidelines, and the prior votes should be voided, or at least updated. Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
striking duplicate vote by the article's creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Terry Fox is notable. A school is not notable because it is named for him. Adding a picture of Terry Fox to the article does nothing to address the school's lack of notability. The two sources added to the article do nothing to show notability:
1. Passing mention of the school in an article about the lack of required annual asbestos inspections since asbestos mitigation in 12 schools in 2004. The only mention of the school is: "There is no asbestos in the following schools: ... Terry Fox Elementary School ..." I have no objection to adding the material to the article, but it does not contribute to notability.
2. Terry Fox's brother visited nine schools in New Brunswick to tell Terry's story. One of the schools was Terry Fox Elementary School. This does not contribute to the school's notability. Meters (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per norm --NoGhost (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- onel5969 and Knox490: Would a redirect to the school district be a acceptable outcome for you? That is the usual procedure as this non notable institution may at some point be searched on Wikipedia. If you're agreeable to that, it will be easier for the closer to assess a consensus and avoid relisting. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an excellent idea, User:John from Idegon. Knox490 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Absolutely, John from Idegon - Would have preferred that route to begin with, but redirect kept getting reverted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was my assumption of what you were trying to do. Unless there is a specific argument raised against a redirect in an AFD I figure any Delete !votes will likely be happy with reasonable redirect. Certainly I am if a good redirect is raised after I !vote delete. Meters (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect restore the redirect and place {{r from school}} on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make some comments about a few concerning comments above:
- The fact it is primary is not a reason to delete or to keep an article on a school, per the recent schooloutcomes RFC. (Yes, that's the other implication regarding SCHOOLOUTCOMES.)
- No topics are presumed notable simply by existing, whether schools or otherwise, unless reliable, secondary sourcing (that is not regional in nature--ref WP:NORG) can be found to indicate that topic's notability.
I personally have no issue with a redirect given that's where the above users are coalescing. --Izno (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC only dealt with the topic of the presumed notability of secondary schools. It did not touch how we should deal with pre-secondary educational institutions. The argument for redirect is that we have for over a decade redirected these schools as a matter of course. This is because the people who tend to be searching for these schools tend to be children, which causes two issues: First, we want to avoid the recreation of these articles via a redlink. Yes, they could do it anyway, but a redirect drastically cuts the chances of an 8 year old doing it. Second, its useful for 8 year olds to be redirected to their hometown or their school board. They are looking for something, so we give them something that is useful for the reader. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is concerning Izno. If it was my comment about the school existing and hence deserving a redirect perhaps I was unclear. I simply meant that since it exists but is non-notable it is a viable redirect. If it were a hoax I would !vote Delete. Not sure what I would do with a non-notable former school, but that's not germane here. The only argument for keeping or deleting based on nothing but existence was by the article creator (I have now tagged it). I see no problem with the notability discussion. Meters (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comment re "primary" was due to the nom's statement primary school; the few per-nom !votes, your elementary school reference in your !vote, subsequently John's "per Meters and longstanding practice", Spem's WP:POINTy comment, and One's response to such. I see the conclusion of the RFC as commenting only on secondary schools now and that the previous (and current) guidance re primary schools in SCHOOLOUTCOMES (not that it should be cited--maybe that should simply be removed due to NORG/GNG) was that they already needed to meet the bar w.r.t. GNG/NORG. Consider me educated.
The comment re "existence" was due to One's followup to Spem (that is the consensus, that elementary schools, unlike secondary schools, are not notable simply by existing), which, post-RFC is incorrect--you did not appear to pick that up Meters.
The comment re "redirect" was really just a "I don't see a need to delete since we routine merge/redirect unnotable topics to greater-relevant topics" but didn't word it like so. So don't worry about that. --Izno (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Roller[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I was able to locate just one significant secondary source biography here. Other web-based bios and articles are self-published, or make trivial mention of this person. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't yet find evidence of notability of this worthy teacher/lawyer. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Killing Phone[edit]

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

Searching shows that this film fails WP:NFILM, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no encyclopedically relevant prose and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2017 (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 War reserve stock. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stockpile (military)[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No different than the regular "civilian" definition of the word. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - as written, this is indeed close to WP:DICDEF. However military stockpiles are significant in operational planning, and in terms of on-going maintenance tend to be challenging where compared to civilian stockpiles (explosive ordinance needs to be kept in separate bunker well apart to avoid a chain explosion of the whole stockpile from a single accident, theft is quite a large concern). An decent encyclopedic entry on military stockpiles could be written.Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War reserve stock for now Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "War reserve stock" as suggested above; not notable for stub, stand alone. Kierzek (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2017 (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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avik Gangopadhyay[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to be the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate evidence of such coverage, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should significant coverage be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is not an academic in his specialty of metaphysics so he doesn't have that advantage in terms of establishing himself as an author. I went to Amazon and none of his books were reviewed, starred, etc. I did a Google search on this person's name and the second site to come up was a Google sites web page. His social media following is very low too so in the absence of him landing a major publisher, it is going to be hard for him to establish himself as a notable author. He may be a great writer, but right now it does not appear that he is a notable writer in terms of the volume of his book sales. Knox490 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2017 (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.

[1] Palestinian stabs British national to death in Jerusalem, B'Tselem, April 2017 - (geolocation on map widget on the right of the page)

[2] ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toireporter/author-Rahul-Verma.cms

[3] ttp://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/author/rahulverma/

[4] ttp://www.ndtv.com/author/rahul-verma

[5] ttp://www.thebetterindia.com/80335/uday-foundation-delhi-congenital-defects/

[6] ttp://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/our-names-may-not-be-khan/2/101119.html

[7] ttp://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/08/20/indian-drug-tests-under-investigation-after-4-babies-die.html

[8] ttp://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai/condom-vending-machines-in-public-places-not-a-hit-in-city/story-UDUJ5bSllRF8gcLvxfLpUL.html

[9] ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toireporter/author-Rahul-Verma.cms

[10] ttp://www.ndtv.com/author/rahul-verma?site=classic

[11] ttp://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/voices/story-of-an-invisible-ews-student-you-see-every-day/

[12] ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Maam-may-I-go-to-the-toilet-please/articleshow/46595768.cms

[13] ttps://thelogicalindian.com/my-social-responsibility/my-story-junk-food-free-schools/

[14] Sbicca, J. (2012). Growing food justice by planting an anti-oppression foundation: opportunities and obstacles for a budding social movement. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(4), 455-466.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]