Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 December	6 December >

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 speedy keep. Well in light of that source (as well as the fact all XF winners currently have articles) it's probably best to wrap this up and ignore it entirely. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rak-Su[edit]

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

Non notable band, Fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Was an expired ProD. Was redirected to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 14)#Rak-Su. Now it lives again. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on precedent, winning The X Factor (UK TV series) is likely enough for notability, and there's a strong likelihood they will have a song on a national chart in the UK in the next week [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:15, 5 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McClelland v Northern Ireland General Health Services[edit]

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

(1) WP:OR - the entire article is the work of the editor, the same thing as an editor writing up a book review about their favourite novel. It is offensive to have WP editors doing this sort of work, doing their own distillation/paraphrase of case reports. All such articles have no place on WP and should be removed; (2) no source (apart from the subject itself) Sirlanz 23:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete- The article gives no indication of notability. However, if the article could be improved with an explanation of why this case is notable (assuming one exists, ie. it set a legal precedence) then I would change to keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The nominator's reasoning confuses me. Are you saying that the case is made-up? A Google search shows that it is real.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting the case is a fabrication. Notability is also not the basis of my nomination. The article is a paraphrase/distillation of a case report. It is entirely the editor's original work. The extraction from an official case report of a case's essence (which is what this editor has done) is precisely what lawyers, judges and academics attempt to do. If any article about a case report is to avoid breach of WP:OR, it must cite such independent analysis, e.g. as published in a law journal. Notability could also come into play in this case (though I've not attempted to research this angle) because the article offers no clue as to any impacts it has had in the community, development of new legislation, etc., or any controversies that may have resulted from it, i.e. no real-world context has been provided. sirlanz Sirlanz 00:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 5 non bot editors in 6 years totaling 10 edits. A legal case of no great importance that I can see. No refs in the article. Best left to the legal books. Szzuk (talk) 21:38, 7 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehboob Almekar[edit]

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

(1) failure to satisfy notability - one appearance, bowling 36 balls, at state level surely marks the subject for a cricket statistics site but not for the WP general encyclopaedia; he's a cricket nobody and even more incognito on the world stage; (2) no sources Sirlanz 22:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- it's been demonstrated over and over again that lists of statistics inflated into prose do not make for an acceptable topic for an encyclopedia article. This one is sourced to a single statistics aggregator site that's been shown to have non-negligible rates of error, problematic for the biography of a (possibly) living person. I'd support a merge to a list of cricketers by club, but these lists seem to be currently deprecated. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve. See my comments on another AfD asking User:Reyk to justify the assertions he makes about CricketArchive, which are entirely the opposite of my own significant experience. For this player, it's patently an unsatisfactory article, in that if he's still alive he'd be one of the oldest surviving players and that might be worthy of a note. But even without that, he is a first-class cricketer who has played cricket at the highest domestic level in a country that plays Test cricket: he therefore passes WP:CRIN, which is the longer, more explanatory form of WP:NCRIC which is itself the sector notability guideline that links into and informs WP:GNG. Johnlp (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I already did justify my opinion of CricketArchive. I've seen it pop up at AfDs and in discussions regarding notability, and errors keep turning up. Mis-spelling players' names, getting confused about the identity of players with similar names (remember the S Perera debacle?) and those are only the errors we've found out about. In my experience it has a high rate of error. As for NCRIC, because this is a disputed guideline with little to no community support outside of the cricket wikiproject, it is not possible to regard "passes NCRIC" as any kind of AfD argument. The reasons this thing is so heavily disputed is that it is overly inclusive, leading to an excessive proliferation of almost contentless microstubs and the inevitable introduction of inaccuracies into the mainspace. Reyk _YO! 11:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take Johnlp's point: this is a great article for a cricket enthusiasts' site (and I love the game, by the way). I do not subscribe to the idea that a cricketer of the most ephemeral imaginable prominence (it would be tough to dream up a greater underachiever) can ever satisfy a reasonable standard of general notability. And I repeat "general" because WP is not a specialist cricket enthusiasts' site. And a simple stat entry somewhere is nothing towards notability even in the cricketing sphere. sirlanz 14:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article fails the general notability guidelines. Those require multiple, third party, reliable sources. Unlike members of national legislatures, cricket players do not get a special pass that allows us to just totally disregard the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Academics who have published a book with a reputable academic publisher and been a professor with tenure at a university for 10+ years are not even gauranteed default notability. How is it at all logical we give such to a cricketer who appeared in 1 top level game, and who is only mentioned in a statistical aggregator with no sources actually telling us anything substantial about him? For example Eric R. Dursteler has been a BYU history professor for 19 years, is head of the history department, has had at least 2 books he wrote published by John Hopkins University Press, was a co-author of a 500-plus page book which is the top scholarly work on Mormonism in Italy, and quite possibly the best scholarly work on Mormonism in continental Europe, has published multiple articles, is the book review editor for the Journal of Early Modern History, was a fellow with Harvard's Renasaince Research Institute in Italy, a Fulbright Fellow, and so on. I am still not positve he would pass notability guidelines though. his top cited work is at only 149 citations for example, although google scholar is not as good for history as some subjects because much of the scholarship appears in books that do not show up there as much. Since I took a class from Dursteler (History of France) I also feel I may have too much of a conflict of interest to create the article. Still a standard that excludes someone with multiple books published by top rated academic presses but includes someone who appeared in one cricket game seems odd in dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I was considering a weak Keep argument based on the slightly more detailed biographical information - we have names, a date of birth etc... The argument above, however, convinces me that there needs to be an even vague attempt at parity between sectors. Given the date at which he played and the very limited information we have about his one cricket match, I feel it is very unlikely indeed that the sorts of sources required to meet the GNG are likely to be found. They may be, but I feel that on the whole it is extremely unlikely that this will be the case. Given that several RfC (such as this one) have made it clear that sports notability criteria only provide a presumption of notability if there is a hope that the GNG will ever be met, I really don't see where the substantive sources are going to come from here. If sources can be found - and it's entirely possible that they may be, say on his death, then I would have no problem at all with the article being re-created - it's got barely any content and would take a matter of minutes to re-create if sources can be found. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert and Blue Square Thing. Does not pass GNG and seems highly unlikely that sources apart from statistical profiles will be found in the future. Dee 03 14:29, 11 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Strzok[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because the individual is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. The individual may at some point warrant a page of his own, but his sole claim to notability at this point is having been in the Mueller team and having been removed from the investigation for referring to the President as "crazy". I'm sure the Republican Party and rightwing media will get into the weeds on this individual and make him notable, but so far he's not notable. 2017 Special Counsel investigation is sufficient. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 5 December 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}}.

Keep- he's been getting a ton of media coverage (see references in the article) and has strengthen Trump's claim that the Russia investigation is a "witch hunt". Also, he is notable for his involvement in two separate events: The Russia investigation and Hillary Clinton email controversy.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that dozens of individuals were involved in either the Russia interference investigation or the Clinton e-mail controversy. That's not sufficient for inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he wasn't just involved. He had a significant influence on Comey's findings in the Clinton investigation and he is the only person removed from Meuller's investigation for misconduct.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to suggest that he "had a significant influence on Comey's findings in the Clinton investigation". Are you referring to Strzok being one of many to review a draft of the investigation's findings? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the fact that he changed the wording from "grossly negligent" (which would suggest a crime was committed) to the much milder "extremely careless."--Rusf10 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? He reviewed the draft, along with many other people. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the CNN article that is referenced[2]: "Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the sources said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I don't think the individual staffers in the investigation should even be mentioned on 2017 Special Counsel investigation. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, we don't need to cover every micro-development just because pro-Trump or anti-Trump maelstroms in the media generate at least two news articles on them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage may have partisan motivations, but there's enough for GNG at this point independently of the Special Counsel investigation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 22:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 22:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current article reads a lot like a WP:PSEUDO biography, as little real biographical information is known on Strzok and his sudden appearance in the news stems from USA partisan politics. From a BLP standpoint, I also question the value of including information about an alleged affair, with names, followed by naming Strzok's wife just below that. However, while I agree with power~enwiki that individual staffers probably shouldn't be mentioned on the 2017 Special Counsel investigation article, due to the news coverage I think there should be a few sentences at that article incorporating the salient points about Strzok's removal from the team for cause. Likewise at the Clinton email article with regard to that portion, if editors so choose. In summary, the political content is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but we shouldn't have a Peter Strzok BLP unless further events, notability, or significance warrants it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to ~~Firing of Peter Strzok~~ per AzureCitizen, WP:PSEUDO, and WP:BLP1E. That is probably the subject that will have long-term coverage. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Strzok has not actually been fired from anything. He was reassigned within the FBI, where he is still employed. bd2412 T 20:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BD2412: Ok then move to any of the following: Dismissal of Peter Strzok
    Removal of Peter Strzok
    Reassignment of Peter Strzok
    etc. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note also that I am specifically opposed to deletion. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Like most FBI agents, he has labored in near-complete anonymity for his entire career until this week. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:BLP1E. At most, this could be a redirect to a paragraph in 2017 Special Counsel investigation. And I'm sorry, but "Firing of Peter Strzok" is even less notable than he is personally, and fails WP:NOTNEWS even more completely. As for "don't mention individual staffers at the investigation article" as several people have said - there is a list, a bare-bones list, of Mueller's team members at that article now - and has been ever since the article was created. Yes, Strzok is listed. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. It's true he has been relatively obscure up to now, but indications now are that he will be the subject of continuing and ongoing coverage in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a centralized BLP and manually divest relevant political content into relevant investigation articles. AzureCitizen and MelanieN makes a lot of good points. Strzok is apparently becoming mildly relevant in reference to the newer investigation. It would be best to have the email server investigation content in that article if it is useful. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not correct that "his sole claim to notability at this point is having been in the Mueller team and having been removed from the investigation..." He is also known for attending Hillary Clinton's FBI interview, he interrogated Hillary's top aids, he interviewed Gen. Michael Flynn, and he is known to have sent emails revealing strong bias in favor of Clinton and against Trump. JD Lambert^(T|C) 03:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removing this information is revisionist. Most of the facts in this article are supported in the media. I contend that most of delete's are motivated by the writers politics. Not in an attempt to keep the information pure. Of course, this person's information can be added too. But nothing should be subtracted. Bronco46 (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that he is in the spotlight there will be much more information surfacing. In addition to "extremely careless" draft change, he conducted the interviews, along with DOJ attorney David Laufman, of Clinton, Mills, and Abedin as well as the interview with Flynn resulting in the lying charge. It is interesting to note that he gave Mills and Abedin a pass on their denial of knowledge of the existence of HRC severer when later email exchanges proved the contrary. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia needs to avoid taking sides politically. Deletion of this page will look like Wikipedia is attempting to whitewash the facts. I'm sure every member of the team that investigated Richard Nixon during Watergate has a page, so should every member of Mueller's team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treymd (talk • contribs) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Treymd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KeepThis person played a very important role in a number of recent important FBI investigations. This entry could be deleted at the beginning of 2018 if it will turn out that he has done nothing wrong (very doubtful). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.149.10 (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 120.147.149.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep This isn't some rank and file FBI agent. He was the lead investigator in at least two extraordinarily high profile investigations involving the two 2016 U.S. Presidential Election candidates. Even before the controversies there was ample coverage of him. He doesn't become less notable once his role in the investigation became more controversial and the focus of an enormous amount of very substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Many are hoping the investigation into possible collusion with Russia is enough to remove the U.S. president from office and put him in jail. This is not a minor deal. Nor was the other investigation involving Clinton's server. Many have blamed it for her election loss. And the FBI investigation into it is right now being investigated by the Justice Department's Inspector General and a focus of Congressional inquiry. So the media coverage is not over by any means. FloridaArmy (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with MelanieN that "Firing of Peter Strzok" would not be notable, but at this point WP:BLP1E no longer applies, since, as been pointed out by other editors, it is not simply a single instance, but several notable events which this person has been a part of. And as also been pointed out by other editors, I fear that the breadth of coverage of this individual is only going to grow over the coming months. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that the deletion request has drawn attention at the conspiracy forum /r/the_donald, which may explain the participation of IP numbers, red accounts and infrequent editors in this discussion[3][4][5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil and assume good faith. IP users and the accounts you call "red" are are human too. Politrukki (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article deletion proposal was also mentioned last night on the Fox News channel. JD Lambert^(T|C) 19:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's amazing. Do you have a link to it or recall which show? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious memory problems, but it was a show last night and it was a female who mentioned it. I also don't watch much TV, don't care about celebrities, but I happened to be watching last night for a few minutes. Possibly it was the host of "The Ingraham Angle," or a female being interviewed on the show before or after that one. JD Lambert^(T|C) 01:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be correct: "As a weird aside to this whole fiasco, if you go to Strzok's Wikipedia page, it reads that the website is considering his whole page for deletion. That's a bit odd, don't you think?"[6] Yes, LAURA INGRAHAM. I don't remember ever agreeing with you, INGRAHAM, but you do have a point there, INGRAHAM. Politrukki (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as others have pointed out, the subject is a subject in multiple controversies, and has been a key figure in multiple investigations. Hence the BLP1E argument is bunk. NOTNEWS argument is specious because the language drafting thing has been discussed for months, it's just that only now it was leaked that Strzok was the one who made the significant changes. NOTNEWS argument also misses the point because the news reporting surrounding Strzok is not trivial and Strzok is the central figure in the events. Politrukki (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-fucking-cisely. Voted elsewhere, but endorse the comment above in particular. Per the above argument that NOTNEWS is being cited superfluously, admins should speedy close this.73.61.20.220 (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual has made an important impact on the geopolitical history of the United States. Future generations should be able to retrieve the facts regarding how this individual personally impacted for better or worse the destiny of these United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.219.88 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 4.121.219.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Strzok's involvement, and more importantly, his conduct, in probes concerning former FLOTUS Hillary Rodham Clinton and associates of current POTUS, President Donald Trump, and the reasons for his demotion by Mueller are unquestionably important. Quis separabit? 18:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The subject has received broad coverage, and was actually an integral investigator in some of the FBI's most important cases long before these matters came up. bd2412 T 20:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Note: I am not terribly opposed to redirecting to the Special Counsel investigation, either. bd2412 T 02:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Striking due to improvement to the article. It should now definitely be kept. bd2412 T 22:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that I could not find a single RS that identifies Peter Strzok by his name in the headlines of their reporting, yet this individual is supposed to be notable enough for a Wikipedia page? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to 2017_Special_Counsel_investigation#Mueller_and_investigation_team where the subject is already mentioned. Notability is marginal at best, while the article is a BLP landmine. Anything worth saying about the subject can be said in the target article. Off-wiki canvassing and SPA-votes are also a concern. The name is a plausible search term, so interested readers can be directed to the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to 2017_Special_Counsel_investigation#Mueller_and_investigation_team ... A person doesn't become notable for a biography for one moment of tiny infamy! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017 Special Counsel investigation#Mueller and investigation team per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS — JFG ^talk 02:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To shoot down this article under WP:BLP1E, you apparently need all 3 of these things: [1] reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event (not true here since multiple investigations are covered); [2] the person is likely to remain, a low-profile individual (not here given the vast coverage and more to come); [3] the individual's role was not substantial (uh, interrogating Mike Flynn to the point where Flynn lied is substantial all by itself). As for WP:NOTNEWS, we have coverage of Strzok going back months, cited in this BLP:

- Doering, Christopher. "Thieves see ag trade secrets as ripe for picking", Des Moines Register (March 7, 2016).
- Schmidt, Michael S.; Goldman, Adam; Lichtblau, Eric (April 22, 2017). "Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election". The New York Times
- Prokupecz, Shimon. "Special counsel brings on FBI official who oversaw Clinton email investigation", CNN (July 13, 2017).
- Bertrand, Natasha (August 16, 2017). "A top FBI investigator has unexpectedly stepped away from special counsel Mueller's Russia probe". Business Insider
- Levine, Mike. "Special counsel's Russia probe loses top FBI investigator", ABC News (August 16, 2017)
- Uchill, Joe. "High-ranking FBI official leaves Russia probe", The Hill (August 16, 2017)
- Levine, Mike; Thomas, Pierre (September 28, 2017). "Special counsel's Russia investigation team loses 2nd FBI veteran". ABC News.
- Hosenball, Alex. "Special counsel Robert Mueller has assembled a team of 16 seasoned prosecutors", ABC News (September 29, 2017).

That’s a lot of coverage that preceded the massive December 2017 coverage, especially given that the FBI is tight-lipped. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)expanded14:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to 2017_Special_Counsel_investigation#Mueller_and_investigation_team. No in-depth secondary coverage independent of the investigation. Most of the "keep" votes about fail to make any policy-related argument and should be discounted by the closer. Neutrality^talk 03:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Note the many single-purpose accounts, new accounts, etc., who have popped up, apparently from off-wiki canvassing. These "votes" above fail to make an policy-based argument - they don't point to sources, but merely claim "WP:ITSIMPORTANT." Users' subjective opinions as to "importance" are not relevant. What is relevant are the presence (or absence) of in-depth, secondary sources meriting a standalone page. That's not the case here. Neutrality^talk 03:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth pointing this out, but it should not be overstated. By my count, only four of the contributions above were from single purpose/IP accounts. The vast majority of "votes" here (whether keep or delete) are from regular contributors.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Seems like a notable person, lots of news coverage, plenty of footnoted information in the BLP, I just added a little more. The BLP subject has been involved in multiple high-profile investigations, not just one, according to the BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is this BLP as it stood at 02:17 on December 7. I started editing immediately thereafter, and with two other editors have greatly upgraded the BLP (e.g. number of footnotes doubled, et cetera). I believe this revised version satisfies most of the objections made against the previous version at 02:17 on December 7. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coment Redirecting to 2017 Special Counsel investigation would imply that is the only thing notable, ignoring he was the deputy head of FBI counter-intelligence, he conducted the interviews of Clinton, Mills, Abedin, and Flynn, he was instrumental in softening the language of the Comey July 2016 Clinton email statement. We sound elitist when we wish to discount “IP numbers, red accounts and infrequent editors”. IMHO more time is needed to allow this article to expand. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to 2017_Special_Counsel_investigation#Mueller_and_investigation_team. Not seeing any convincing policy arguments in the keep contributions. This is a WP:BLP so any inadequacies need to be fixed quickly. There are only allegations at the moment ("reports of") which is what people are saying make him notable. If those allegations are proved, we can reconsider an article. Otherwise, lots of FBI agents interview high-profile people. That does not make them notable. I'm not sure why changing wording based on the outcome of an investigation is problematic. If the original allegation is gross negligence but the investigation finds only extreme carelessness, then the wording should be changed. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Extremely noteworthy, on his own. He is becoming a central player in the both Russian collusion and Hilary email stories. BneiBrakPhone (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— BneiBrakPhone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP because of current undermined controversy involving Strzok's rewriting of the charges being considered against Hillary Clinton to lesser charges, so that Hillary would be exonerated-in-advance by FBI Director James Comey. This disparity of justice is a primary concern of the American people, and should continue to be discussed in this form. ThomasLStanley (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— ThomasLStanley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Yeah, we're an online encyclopedia, not a substitute for reddit or Facebook. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He was a government worker. He broke a rule, allegedly. He was reassigned. Not notable. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Media hype, supported by right-wing activism and internet smearing. The man is a pawn in the game of life, and whatever he has done in his life before this would never have attracted any attention, and rightfully so, had it not been for this--so BLP1E certainly applies. A redirect might be appropriate and if, as one other commentator suggests, that would imply that this is the only thing for which he etc., well, that would be correct then. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the deputy director of counterintelligence at the fbi, who has been the leader of several very well-publicized investigation(s), and who got canned from the last one of those investigations, is a pawn in the game of life, then what are we? Such tiny little insignificant specks, each of us less than a full granule of dust in the wind, oh the pain, my self image is hurting now, woe unto Wikipedia editors. :-( Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what he is, at least for notability purposes. In his own life I'm sure he's huge, and in the life of the people he oversees, and I have no doubt he makes a nice six-figure salary, and none of that really means anything. You know that if he hadn't became yet another political punching bag (irrespective of whether he did something wrong or not) no one in their right mind would have ever cared, as the timestamp on your edits to the article indicate. Sorry to bust that bubble about you and me and our egos. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but he has become a politic punching bag, and this has been fairly widely reported. Frank Wills was merely a security guard, and would be completely non-notable for his station, but he happened to get involved in a matter of national interest. bd2412 T 23:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM

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

I agree with bd2412, and thank goodness for Frank Wills, the security guard. Wikipedia has a very nice little article on punching bags, and maybe several thousand articles on individual cricket and soccer players with maybe one obscure footnote apiece on average. Strzok is a muckity muck, and I care more about him now that he’s a famous and controversial muckity muck. Since he’s in the spying business, he probably kept a low profile on purpose, but those days are gone it seems. This BLP is very fair to him. Joe Arpaio probably doesn’t want a BLP here anymore than Strzok does, but they don’t run Wikipedia presumably. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, Willis is nothing like this guy, and their actions aren't comparable. "Widely reported", yes, but it's still a side show. I don't know what Arpaio has to do with anything; his position already likely made him notable via NPOLITICIAN, and he's been passing the GNG for decades for actually having done stuff. This guy basically did nothing, and the whole "scandal" is manufactured. Anythingyouwant, I know you like the politics of all this, but those cricketers and all are likely notable via a set of guidelines suitable for an encyclopedia that claims to adhere to such guidelines as NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that a person who is the subject of a widely publicized manufactured scandal is still notable. We have articles on notable hoaxes, too. bd2412 T 01:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Clinton email investigation, he’s notable for being the one who deleted that she engaged in “gross negligence.” In the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, he’s notable for being the one who started the investigation. In the Flynn matter, he’s notable for being the person who Flynn lied to leading to a criminal penalty for Flynn. In the Mueller investigation, he’s notable for being fired after writing anti-Trump text messages that brought his and the FBI’s neutrality into question. Etc. Etc. Etc. He’s also the second ranking counterintelligence guy at the FBI, which is a very significant office. It’s true he wouldn’t be in the news if he hadn’t been canned, and Snowden wouldn’t be in the news if he hadn’t left the NSA, and Neil Armstrong might not have an article here if he hadn’t passed the NASA entry exam. Just because secret stuff is not made available to reporters until a lot of time goes by (or maybe never made available) doesn’t mean it’s not potentially notable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does it hurt at all to have to twist yourself and the facts like this to get your political points in? In summary, no, signing off on a document doesn't make you the one who starts an investigation; no he's not notable for that (hardly his prerogative: just a secretary); no that doesn't make him notable (he's the cop writing down the statement); yes, BLP1E followed by 4chan and Fox making a mountain of a molehill and Wikipedia editors lending a helping hand. The FBI's neutrality is not brought in question--at least not by serious people and publications.

Your comparisons are crap. Snowden wouldn't be in the news if he hadn't left the NSA? The guy stole a kazillion secret documents and fled to Russia, or did you miss that? Armstrong stepped on the moon, which is why he has an article; he's not the only one who passed the test. Sheesh. [ec: Oh there's secret stuff? Wow!] Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You’re being quite a politician here Drmies, ignoring points that don’t work in you favor. The Clinton email thing was huge, that “gross negligence” was replaced by a synonym that lacked legal significance. And Mueller wouldn’t have sent this guy to work in the mail room or whatever if Mueller didn’t see any jeopardy in the chief investigator ranting about Trump. I dob’t think you’re being objective at all here. Earl Warren is renowned for running the Warren Commission and this guy was running similar high profile investigations, just like Mueller is running a high profile investigation described by multiple Wikipedia articles. To shoot down this article under BLP1E, you need all 3 of these things: [1] reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event (not true here since multiple investigations are covered); [2] the person is likely to remain, a low-profile individual (not here given the vast coverage and more to come); [3] the individual's role was not substantial (uh, interrogating Mike Flynn to the point where Flynn lied is substantial all by itself). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False comparisons. Warren has a commission named for him, never mind that he was a chief justice. Strzok has an AfD named for him, no matter Mueller's intentions or your speculations. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if he has only ever been mentioned on the right-wing networks - CNN has published a piece on this. Furthermore, although politicians may be making hay of these issues, they are subject to multiple interpretations. Strzok's change in the wording of the Clinton email can easily be seen as a legally correct determination that the more severe language was unwarranted since the data on Clinton's server was never breached (although people tend to conflate the unrelated breach of the Democratic National Committee server with the court-ordered production of Clinton's emails). Mueller's swift decision to remove Strzok from the investigation can easily be seen as a demonstration of Mueller's integrity and neutrality in the conduct of the investigation, shoring up its legitimacy. bd2412 T 02:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While initial coverage regarding his reassignment from the Special Counsel probe have justified a redirect, additional coverage reported widely in major news sources, CNN, Washington Post, etc. and his involvement in not just the Trump-Russia probe but the Clinton investigation as well and significant actions in both make him notable independently of either individually. Full disclosure I've made a few earlier edits to the article, adding the current events person tag and the FBI agents category. Phil (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has significant coverage following a recent event. (Note: I've added the CNN ref, and the new page reviewer suject to this AFD.) KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 19:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: From the start of this ADF on 21:25, 5 December 2017 this article has expanded from 5,591 bytes to 13,698 bytes and from 9 RS to 27 RS as of 22:43, 9 December 2017. Grahamboat (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic passes GNG from sources already showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- it's still a "Delete / Redirect" for me. With edits such as this ("reportedly brought attention to Steele dossier"), deletion is the best option. Too many BLP concerns and WP:INVALIDBIO situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think “reportedly brought attention to Steele dossier” is supported by the cited source? Browne, Pamela. "Fired FBI official at center of Flynn, Clinton, dossier controversies revealed", Fox News (December 2, 2017). That source says, he “reportedly helped push the largely unverified dossier on Trump that was initially prepared by Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign's opposition research.” The NYT confirms that Strzok made use of that dossier, see Schmidt, Michael S.; Goldman, Adam; Lichtblau, Eric (April 22, 2017). "Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election". The New York Times: “It took weeks for this information to land with Mr. Strzok and his team. Mr. Steele had been a covert agent for MI6 in Moscow, maintained deep ties with Russians and worked with the F.B.I., but his claims were largely unverified. It was increasingly clear at the F.B.I. that Russia was trying to interfere with the election.” Undoubtedly Strzok was part of a team at the FBI, but Wikipedia has BLPs on lots of members of various teams. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably of permanent interest. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 13 December 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) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of neurofibromatosis charities[edit]

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

I removed the external links in accordance with WP:ELLIST, and only one charity on the list links to an article. I'm not sure this list merits an article per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Natureium (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The fact all the list entries were substituted with external links means non of them are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If neurofibromatosis were commonplace, I would have encountered this term and possibly a charity by now. 1/3000 seems a long shot. 165.91.12.190 (talk) 08:55, 6 December 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) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Assam Chutia Students Union[edit]

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

This is related to recent disruption at Chutiya Kingdom. The sources are not independent. The two which are not the group itself, are based on press releases. There's no credible evidence that this group passes WP:GNG, and the WP:PA creator is almost certainly a member. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant Students Union, fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 09:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. - Mar11 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 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 Midlands Merit League. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huyton Bulldogs[edit]

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

Amateur club which doesn't appear to be notable. Played one season in a feeder league and seem to have folded after that. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect per The Bushranger: Article doesn't establish it's notability. Mattlore (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midlands Merit League, the league they played in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 6 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruneau (restaurant)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "Michelin-starred restaurant is probably notable". Well, the article doesn't even mention Michelin star, but in either case, is this enough to make a restaurant notable? Particularly in absence of any other sources, making this a perennial stub... Good to discuss for the future. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has a Michelin star. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing clear here. What policy states this is sufficient? I say it may be sufficient for a merge and redirect to List of Michelin 3-star restaurants. Not that there is anything to merge, really. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:V. The Banner talk 13:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the Dutch Wikipedia article, this was a three star restaurant from 1988 to 2004, and then lost its second star in 2010. A very recent item in Food and Wine Gazette notes that "Michelin paid hommage to the legendary chef Jean-Pierre Bruneau who will retire in January. His Brussels restaurant Bruneau has been in the guide for 42 years, 15 of which as a 3 Michelin star restaurant." [7] Here's a recent article about the restaurant's upcoming closing from Food&Sens and there are many more articles, especially in French, about the restaurant and the chef that can be used to improve this article. I can understand the recent spate of restaurant AfDs directed toward run of the mill restaurants with only limited local notoriety, but three-star restaurants, past or present, are the sort of thing that belong in the encyclopedia, and the article should be developed, not eliminated. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 18:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Not because of the Michelin Star, there are literally over a thousand restaurants that have one. The reason is when I did a google search on the chef I found a ton of articles (Unfortunately they are not in English, so I can't read them though).--Rusf10 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep move coverage in French: [8], [9]. I'd be inclined to support a guideline that Michelin 3-star restaurants are presumably notable, but there's no policy to that effect currently. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG - The Michelin Guide is considered a notable list [10], and as such a reliable source. Power~enwiki shows that there is also other in-dept attention for the subject. As such, it meets WP:GNG. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough here that WP:GNG can be satisfied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The are are not a thousand restaurant that have eve had two stars (as this one has had), but a few hundred, and I consider all of them presumptively notable. Any such restaurant will have extensive non-promotional coverage. I am much less sure about extending it down to one star. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with thousands based on this:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/map-michelin-star-restaurants-countries-with-the-most/. But you are correct that most of them only have one star.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. –Superbly rated, recognized by peers, referenced, Gault Millau high-rating and Michelin star do surely establish notability here. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A restaurant that quote "has been a beacon of shining excellence", formerly held 3 Michelin stars for 16 years, and still has one. Sources have been added, there is more work to do here, but this is not material for deletion let alone uncontroversial deletion via PROD. Sam Sailor 15:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, passes GNG. There are ample references that are intellectually independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 10 December 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. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Williams[edit]

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

not a public figure, almost 8 years removed from a minor office — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympiaattorney (talk • contribs) 18:19, 5 December 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 December 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Former member of the Washington House of Representatives. Passes WP:NPOL. (Adding signature - --Enos733 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The Washington state legislature is not a "minor office" — state legislators have a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1 as articles that we must have, and the notability of a state legislator is not dependent on whether he's currently still in office or not.Given that nominating this for deletion was the nominator's first-ever Wikipedia contribution under this username (not to mention the nominator's username itself), I frankly suspect that this nomination is actually a conflict of interest attempt by Williams himself or a colleague to sweep the sexual harassment allegations under the rug — but while we do have a responsibility to be careful to address those in a neutral way, we do not have any responsibility to participate in simply making them disappear entirely. The article has existed since 2008 without anybody attempting to have it deleted until after the edit war commenced over the inclusion of the allegations. Article does need sourcing improvement, because it depends too much on primary sources as written, but the base notability claim fully passes our inclusion standard. Anything beyond that is a content issue, not a deletion issue. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've listed the nominator for a sockcheck against the article's other recent editwarriors. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very suspicious nomination. The SPA only two edits are on this nomination barely minutes after creating account. Bearcat analysis is very plausible and this is censoring of Wikipedia. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have actually seen articles on past members of state legislatures deleted as attack articles, however this does not count as an attack articles. There is no undue weight given to the accusations against Williams. This is actually a well sourced and comprehensive biography of a state legislator, of the type we ought to have for every member of every national or top level sub-national legislature in the whole wrold. We are far short of that goal, even for current legislatures, and outside the US congress probably short of that goal for every legislature in the world, including the British parliament.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 7 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glowing pickle[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails GNG, due to title would probably be OR if not for the two refs. (Title makes it sound like a specific glowing pickle, which it is not.) South Nashua (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Glowing pickle experiment or something similar. This has been covered non-trivially by several RS, including the Washington Post. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to confirm, you want to delete the article here, but recreate it with a more appropriate title? If there is additional RS, I'd be fine with something like Electrical conductivity within pickles or something like that, although a broader scope would probably be more prudent. South Nashua (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. (article-author here) I had planned to move it to Glowing pickle demonstration (it's usually something you see not that you do yourself, and it's more about the glowing than the simple conductivity), but Glowing pickle experiment is reasonable too. But I did not want to rename it while a discussion about its previous form was happening at WP:Deletion review. DMacks (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll move it for you to that first title you recommended, I think we've developed some good discussion here to improve the article and establish notability. The title is confusing, so I think a redirect and move may help resolve the issue in addition to the additional RS. South Nashua (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Science project would seem to be the logical place, but that article has so many problems I'm not sure it's relevant. This, and other common projects such as a baking soda volcano, have enough coverage to meet GNG, but aren't great topics for stand-alone articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator of its current form). Independently notable demonstration--some popular press, but also used in multiple academic settings and identified as a specifically useful teaching example. There are hidden comments with cites of a standard chemistry textbook discussion of it and a J. Chem. Ed. article discussing the teaching-usefulness of it. To quote that article, "The electric pickle is a classic demonstration that has been widely used in both high school and college settings to explain the general principles behind atomic emission. This demonstration is particularly helpful..." DMacks (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a demonstration at a science center I have visited, and that it is widely known can be confirmed using Google. The argument for deletion is incoherent, and there is no evidence that the nominator attempted to resolve his dispute or even clarify his/her viewpoint before involving AfD volunteers. AfD is for discussion regarding worthless articles that need admin tools. Unscintillating (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's no such thing as a worthless article, only an article that doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Every edit has worth to someone. South Nashua (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable and notable science experiment. The present sources in the article shows the experiment stands out of many and no convincing reason for deletion. This is also not WP:OR as the nom thought, as clearly shown by reference used. I also agree with renaming (move) as some people suggested above, although this is not place to discuss such–Ammarpad (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pardon me if I rant a bit here. AfD's sometimes make me shake my head, usually at the total crap people are arguing to keep. This one makes me sad, and a little angry, at the idea that we're trying to get rid of an article on an important STEM topic. I'll admit I had never heard of the glowing pickle experiment until a few days ago, but it didn't take me long to discover that this is a classic electrochemistry demonstration. What makes it popular is the entertainment value, but it's also a serious scientific demonstration. It touches on both classical chemistry of salt solutions and electrical conduction, but also on quantum mechanics and atomic orbitals to explain the electroluminescent properties. If we're not keeping articles like this, what's the point? Anyway, there's tons of good sources. Here's some of the best that I found in a few minutes. Presented more or less in order of value to demonstrate WP:N.

New York Times
Washington Post
Journal of Chemical Education
CSI: Crime Scene Investigations
MIT TechTV
University of Washington Department of Chemistry
Chemistry as a Game of Molecular Construction: The Bond-Click Way

Addendum: It also saddens me that whoever did the initial stub sorting, tagged this as a Vegetable stub, but not a Science stub (I've since fixed that). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 13 December 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 snow keep. The bold decision by Oakshade to add references resolved the issues raised. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellertown station[edit]

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

Fails GNG, RAILOUTCOMES. Only ref I could find was a blog post from a few years back. South Nashua (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- sources just don't seem to be there. I'd be all for keeping if more sources could be found though.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Hellertown, Pennsylvania#Transportation~~ ~~which has a carbon copy of this stub (and this will keep the link in SEPTA-related articles blue)~~. Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We've got sources now (and I pretty much hoped for that), so this can be switched to a keep (though an "infobox station" about its place in the SEPTA system would be appreciated). Nate • (chatter) 21:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ ~~to Hellertown, Pennsylvania#Transportation, where this is already covered.~~ - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extremely in-depth multi-page coverage in the 2001 book When the Railroad Leaves Town [11]. This is more coverage than many former stations that have articles where there is no issue of notability. Other independent coverage exists too. [12][13] This article was AfD'd in less than one day of its creation [14] which really shouldn't have been done for a real rail station past or present and is a case of WP:BITE. --Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- with the new source, I can support keeping as I mentioned before.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep all railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The talk page is still red. As per WP:BEFORE C3, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page...". WP:BEFORE D1 includes Google books, which aren't mentioned in the nomination. One of those refs I've added to Springtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania and wikilinked to Hellertown station. This ref shows that train stations are used as points of reference. I also added a gazetteer reference from 1871 to the article. Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very well sourced article. I am thinking we should go to acepting every train station as notable, if that has not been done. I would like to see a statement of when the station was founded, but we have enough to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call this "very well sourced", but there's now enough for me to change my !vote to Keep. Good work finding the additional reference. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep under the WP:GNG. Sufficiently referenced for a station. gidonb (talk) 05:51, 8 December 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 Turner Prize winners and nominees. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Turner Prize[edit]

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

Stub article with info that would be better suited to Turner Prize. This article has less info than that article already includes for 2015. Lopifalko (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Possible search term. Could be expanded at some point, if someone had an interest in the area. On a side note, maybe nominate the page for the Turner Prize as "Attempted Article".... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Later I intend to also nominate stub articles 2017 Turner Prize, 2014 Turner Prize, 2012 Turner Prize and 2010 Turner Prize. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Turner Prize winners and nominees. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Could only be a list with a few details, best redirected. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Turner Prize. where the shortlist can be included.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 12 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of State Security (Russia)[edit]

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

News about the creation of this ministry originated from this Kommersant article (in Russian) dated 19 September 2016; the story was picked up and republished by Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Politico, etc. A month later a Russian official (Sergei Ivanov) denied that this ministry will ever be created. This is the most recent story I could find on the topic; given that it has been over a year since then, I suggest that the article and its fork Ministry for State Security (Russia) should be deleted as a non-notable hoax. eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The citations at the article support this organization exists and is notable. The article should be kept in Wikipedia. IQ125 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, they don't support the existence of this ministry, they just reported that maybe one will be created one day, all based on a single source from over a year ago, and even that has been denied. The article is literally about a debunked rumor, and not even a notable one.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weather this was a hoax or an actual plan that was then abandoned, it does not exist, never did exist, is not planned, and nothing about it merits an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it looks like just to be a rumor, which had no noticeable effects. A ntv (talk) 15:14, 12 December 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 Religion in San Marino. WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islam In San Marino[edit]

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

I don't think there is any encyclopedical information in this article or that it will expand beyond two statements it has now Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - There do not seem to be any sources attesting to the subject's notability, and even the population figure, where reported, seems to be more a concession to measurement error than a true estimate. If any notable information does emerge it can be incorporated into Religion in San Marino, but at the moment there is no content worth merging. MarginalCost (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Patar Knight. MarginalCost (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Religion in San Marino, where Islam being a very small minority there is mentioned and sourced. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Patar Knight.PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:51, 7 December 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) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signs (Paranormal City song)[edit]

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

I've heavily edited this page to remove unsourced and (in some cases) fictitious claims, including winning non-existent awards, and removed two very comprehensive tables claiming international singles charts positions for 2002 (the song was recorded in 2014): I've also removed a lot of the indiscriminate piped links such as [[Management|Niall Bishop]], [[Magazine|''Slasher'' magazine]] and (egregiously) [[Iceland Music Awards|''Ireland Weekly'']] which appear to have been added in an effort to pad out the page with blue links and thus appear to be more significant. The enduring issue, though, is that none of the remaining references support the claims in the article, and the certifications table is completely unsourced - and in spite of my best efforts, I cannot find anything online to corroborate the claims regarding international sales. Even with this, WP:SONGS states "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable)" - and without it, I feel the page definitely fails GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notwithstanding the apparently deliberate inexactitudes noted above, what remains of the article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSINGLE. On the latter, if the claimed Irish chart placement ("number one in Ireland") were true, then it would likely contribute to notability. However, a review of the IRMA music chart history (circa July 2015 - the claimed release date), returns nothing relating to this song or artist. The chart placements in other countries also fail verification (for example there is zero mention in the US Billboard Top 100 for the period (Aug 2015) when it was supposedly charting there.) The awards are equally spurious. (For example, the claimed 'Top 500 Songs of 2015' exists only in this article. And perhaps someone's imagination). GNG is also not supported (The reviews and coverage claimed in the article are not supported. And, for example, as with the 'Top 500 Songs of 2015', the music journalist "Richard Bugarri" from the magazine "Slasher" has no internet presence - outside of this article). In short, the subject fails the required notability criteria (and the coverage of the subject substantively skirts hoax guidelines). Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's not exactly a hoax, because the artist and the song do exist (and you know what, it's actually pretty good). But the chart placings and the certifications/sales are all entirely fictitious... this song didn't chart anywhere. Once you take those out, the article is left with a lot of OR about the song's background and meaning, and some supposed reviews, airplay and awards, none of which are sourced anywhere. You can't even find this song to buy or stream on iTunes, Amazon or Spotify, just on Ryan's Soundcloud and YouTube channels. In short, everything points to this being a song recorded in Ryan's bedroom (including the video) and it fails WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: now the artiste's page has been deleted, this page has become an orphan. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:07, 12 December 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) 19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Savage[edit]

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

Fails NPOL, GNG. A list of mayors on the Emeryville page would be fine, but it's unclear that he's notable on his own. South Nashua (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors of small towns aren't automatically presumed notable just because they exist, but this isn't referenced well enough to pass the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our inclusion criteria for local officeholders — the only reliable sources here are not covering him in the context of his mayoralty, but are just namechecking his existence in the context of the death of his grandson. And no, being a small-town's first African-American mayor isn't an automatic notability boost either — it might make a difference if the coverage of him nationalized for that reason, but it doesn't automatically make him more notable than all of Emeryville's other mayors if sufficient sourcing isn't there to support it. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject of the article does not meet our inclusion criteria for politicians, specifically failing to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Emeryville is not even a significant enough city to have it clearly spelled out in the article on the city if it has a mayor-council or city manager with figurehead mayor system of government. Clearly having a grandchild kiled in an interaction with the police is not enough to make Savage himself notable. Emeryville had under 7,000 inhabitants when Savage was mayor, and is a city with 1.2 square miles of land sandwiched between Oakland, California and Berkeley, California. It, like many other places in the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose area is the base of many computer related companies, possibly most notably Pixar, and has a deep cultural cache. However none of this rises to a level giving the mayor notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 10 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick G. Strickland[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NBIO. Didn't think an A7 applied, though. Only found one other ref after a Google search. South Nashua (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Which other ref was that, South Nashua? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This little blurb. Not even sure if it's the same guy! South Nashua (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible GS cites. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The nature of Wikipedia rules on notability mean that when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, they are generally not notable. On the other hand there needs to be major improvements to our article on Knipperdolings. Two things remain unclear, one is how Strickland and associates were connected to the 16th-century Anabaptists. Was there a continual line of actions, or did Strickland and his associates start the new movement after reading of the ideas of the 16th-century Anabaptists. Considering that one of the main sources on Knipperdolings was published in 1804, we clearly have sub-par sourcing. I do have to admit that one of my big concerns about many of the articles on religious groups in Wikipedia is there is rarely much good information on group size. At least a lot of articles would do well to report at least the number of congregations a group has had at various times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of Wikipedia rules on notability mean that when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, they are generally not notable. To which rule are you referring, specifically? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, what you have is a dissertation topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but Wikipedia is not the place to write dissertations. It is an encyclopedia that is meant to reflect currently contemporary scholarship on a topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered the question: to which rule were you referring, specifically? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you go back over 100 years what you find are sources. There may be enough of them to source a page on this minor socialist; socialists write a lot. I recommend searching both Fred and Frederick, I didn't use his initial just his surname and keywords like "Yellow Springs" and socialist. Where I have grave doubt is about the assertion that he was a Knipperdollings. Bernhard Knipperdolling was a real 16th century anabaptist. Where the Strickland article goes off the rails is in the assertion that Strickland was a Knipperdolling. It seems to come from this 1904 nespapaercolums [15]], but it is not clear that nay knipperdollings sourvived the Münster rebellion of 1534. The term was as a put-down of something Strickland had written and, from that, turned into a wikipedia article Knipperdolings which needs to be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The nature of Wikipedia rules on notability mean mean that when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, they are generally not notable" is the exact opposite of a valid argument. Wikipedia covers the entire range of people, and the entire historical range of source. WP is not a current record of just the last 100 years, but an encyclopedia. Sources are available, and there is no reason why the career was not notable in its time; once notable , always notable is the true rule for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per DGG and clear neglect of WP:BEFORE. Despite the nominator's claim that only one other reference can be found on Google, a quick search turns up at least another half-dozen sources – and that's without clicking onto page 2 and without using any less-than-obvious search terms. (Having not done extensive research, on can only assume prima facie that this is the same person as surely there can't be that many American Christian socialist ministers with the name Frederick Strickland active in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.) And given that we're dealing with an historical figure, it shouldn't come as a surprise that most information would not be freely available on the internet. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mostly per WP:RECENT along the lines of what DGG already said. But I think his inclusion in the 1908 Who's Who (back when that meant something) also goes a long way towards WP:GNG. Also I think the De Leon source should be removed per WP:ATTACK; it is clearly editorial in nature and would not be tolerated as a source if the subject were living, so why is it ok in this case? —David Eppstein (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources that come up in searches suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RECENT, as others have argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 11 December 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 delete. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak, speedy deletion criteria CSD A7, CSD G11. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triveen nair[edit]

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

Notability. I am unconvinced by the refereces; the novel is basically self-published. Before I gave the article a fairly savage haircut it was a classic vanity biog. TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Promo piece. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment I found his book in amazon and found out that he has good writing. I started researching about this guy and collected this details. User:Kichuaruatu) 21:45, 5 December 2017 (IST)
- Going to Amazon does not constitute "researching", and I removed the link you gave to the book on Amazon. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 5 December 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. Unanimous delete !vote, and no substantial contributions other than the creator who has requested deletion as well. WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Shops at Putterham[edit]

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

Unremarkable and non-notable shopping area cited to one author. Search finds almost no sources beyond the shops and trade directories. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is basically a strip mall. There are thousands of strip malls, its not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a retail guide for every single little mall or centre. Ajf773 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote this page. This is not notable. Can I replace the AfD message with Db-author and nominate it for speedy deletion via G7? Cran32 (talk) 03:08, 6 December 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 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ebrahim and Company[edit]

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

I tried to find coverage about this company but failed. WP is WP:NOTYELLOW. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can't find anything on this company other than its own website.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more common spelling is "Mohamed Ebrahim & Co.", but even using this, I'm turning up only directory listings (like linkedin) . Searches using ""Mohamed Ebrahim" merely show that there are a million people with this name. searching "Mohamed Ebrahim" + "water coolers" only prouduced more directory listings. I think we can delete this article that has sat unsourced since 2007.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 12 December 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 Christiane Pflug. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pflug[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. The article lacks immense notability so Delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Zero notability. Natureium (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the spouse of anyone is never in and of itself grounds for notability. Some people may have coverage because of who they are married to, but we must have coverage to justify an article. In this case, that is the only marginal claim, with nothing indicating why this fact would lead to Pflug having any coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christiane Pflug. Michael Pflug, also a painter although he earned the M.D. and was a practicing physician, did have gallery representation, and gallery shows of his work.[16] Moreover, his life art are discussed in depth in Somewhere Waiting: The Life And Art Of Christiane Pflug by Ann Davis Oxford University Press. 1991.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 12 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Calandre[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp the rationale "one of the top 50 restaurants in the world is probably notable". Well, it's an interesting issue: is inclusion in the The World's 50 Best Restaurants sufficient to make a restaurant notable? I think not, a lot of those would be perennial stubs with little to say except that it exists somewhere and won this award. I think inclusion in that list should not be enough for a stand-alone article, which should require further sources - at best those restaurants can be mentioned in the list of restaurants which made it to the The World's 50 Best Restaurants ranking. I'll also note most of those old lists have little visibility, not being archived on the awarding site's (as far as I can tell), being available only in the Internet Archive, which does not suggest this is a lasting, significant recognition (without TIA it would be almost impossible to verify those claims at all). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as detailed above. Not many restaurants make it onto the list; those that do are clearly notable. It also has three Michelin stars! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly notable per what policy? Don't say it is common sense. Common sense applies to things that have household recognition. 99.9% of people (or our editors) have never heard of that obscure award. Not all awards grant auto-notability. Michelin is a bit more famous, but again, I don't see this in the rules anywhere. We have a List of Michelin 3-star restaurants which can mention such tiny-stub restaurants without a need for them to have a stand-alone two sentence entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Michelin is "a bit more famous"!? You really couldn't make this stuff up! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another three-star restaurant at AfD! Of course there are sources to confirm notability. In English, here are a couple that can be used to start expanding the article: WWD, Food & Wine. Lots more in English and Italian. AfD evaluates articles based on their potential, not their current state, and the suggestion that highly distinguished restaurants like this one should be relegated to a listing on a chart is counterproductive; our content about these establishments can and should be expanded and improved, not banished and reduced to uselessness.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the mean time. Per Arxiloxos addressed, this article has the ability to grow in the near future. However, as of now, the article is an utter stub and fit for deletion. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge to List of Michelin 3-star restaurants, though I don't oppose a Keep. The coverage is almost all in Italian. What I find is either on the Michelin stars, or on Massimiliano Alajmo. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable restaurant judging from 100s of sources, and quoting from a few:

"one of Italy's most cutting-edge restaurants"

"is consistently judged by major restaurant critics as one of the two or three best restaurants in the country"

"This is truly a restaurant at the pinnacle of culinary achievement."

"Le Calandre is without doubt one of the top restaurants of the world."

I have added 25 sources and expanded.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]

References

^ Gori, Andrea (1 December 2017). "Raffaele e Massimiliano Alajmo: fratelli in affari". Retrieved 3 December 2017.
^ "Le Calandre tra i 16 ristoranti più "cool" del 2016 secondo Forbes". Retrieved 3 December 2017.
^ "Le Calandre restaurant review 2012 May Rubano – Italian Cuisine – food guide – Andy Hayler". www.andyhayler.com. 4 May 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2017.
^ "Le Calandre". The World's 50 Best Restaurants. Retrieved 3 December 2017.
^ Food & Wine: The Guide to Good Taste. Vol. 33. International Review of Food & Wine Associates. July 2010. pp. 54–. Two years later, they took over La Montecchia and handed Le Calandre over to Massimiliano (Massi or Max, for short) and his older brother Raffaele, or Raf. ... In 1996, the 22-year-old Massi became the youngest chef with two Michelin stars. Six years later, he beat his own record by snagging a third.
^ "Le Calandre nella Top 20 mondiale dei ristoranti – Corriere del Veneto". corrieredelveneto.corriere.it. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
^ "I 50 migliori ristoranti al mondo, Le Calandre salgono di 12 posizioni". Retrieved 6 December 2017.
^ Hayler, Andy (5 October 2012). "The expert selection: Michelin three-star restaurants". Financial Times. Retrieved 3 December 2017.
^ Fodor's (22 March 2011). Fodor's Venice and Northern Italy. Fodor's Travel. pp. 132–. ISBN 978-0-307-92814-6.
^ Food & Wine: The Guide to Good Taste. Vol. 33. International Review of Food & Wine Associates. July 2010. pp. 52–.
^ "There is no truth except the one contained in the ingredients – TeatroNaturale.Com". www.teatronaturale.com. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
^ "MICHELIN guide Italy 2018 – the new selection". travelguide.michelin.com. Retrieved 5 December 2017.
^ Bob Macdonald (7 August 2012). Knives on the Cutting Edge: The Great Chefs' Dining Revolution. Mighty Media, Incorporated. pp. 71–. ISBN 978-0-9830219-9-5. Le Calandre in Rubano, west of Venice, offers dramatic modern decor in an otherwise mundane village. Now considered one of Italy's most cutting-edge restaurants (it had two stars when we visited in 1998, and got its third star in 2002), we were quite impressed by such offerings as the pumpkin and Gorgonzola flan, white truffle gnocci, poached egg with spinach in truffled cream sauce, and spaghetti with prosciutto, mushrooms, and marjoram. We particularly appreciated the Italian ... Alajmo joined the family restaurant in 1993 and earned his second star at age twenty-two in 1996, working with his brother Ruffaele who runs the front of the house.
^ Jean-François Mesplède (1 April 2004). Trois étoiles au Michelin: Une histoire de la haute gastronomie française et européenne (in French). Gründ. ISBN 978-2-7000-2468-5. Le 19 mars 1994, très solennellement, Erminio Alajmo a remis à ses fils les clés du restaurant Le Calandre, à Sarmeola di Rubano, près de Padoue.
^ "Recipe for success: three leading chefs talk about starting young in the kitchen". Retrieved 3 December 2017.
^ "Le Calandre, nuovo corso di Alajmo Via le tovaglie, piatti sul frassino secolare". Corriere del Veneto. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
^ "Guida Michelin 2017, "Le Calandre" confermate festeggiano 15 anni di "Tre Stelle"". Retrieved 6 December 2017.
^ "World's 50 best restaurants 2010: the full list". 26 April 2010. Retrieved 6 December 2017 – via www.theguardian.com.
^ Time Out: Italy. Time Out Guides. 2008. pp. 203–. ISBN 978-1-84670-046-0. Massimiliano Alajmo took over his parents' one-star restaurant, Le Calandre, when he was only 19. Not only did he not lose that star - as sometimes happens when a new chef comes in - but three years later he was awarded a second, at a mere 22 years old. Unlike in France, where many restaurants have three stars, in Italy the Red Guide is parsimonious with its highest accolades: to date only a handful of restaurants have made it into the three-star culinary pantheon.
^ "Le Calandre restaurant owners to open London outpost". Retrieved 6 December 2017.
^ "Massimiliano Alajmo e la pizza stellata". VanityFair.it. 6 May 2017. Retrieved 3 December 2017.
^ "Le Calandre restaurant review 2012 May Rubano – Italian Cuisine – food guide – Andy Hayler". www.andyhayler.com. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
^ Ravi Wazir (1 March 2015). Restaurant Startup: A Practical Guide (3rd Edition). Ravi Wazir. pp. 280–. ISBN 978-1-5084-4558-6.
^ "Il Mozart dei fornelli". Retrieved 6 December 2017.
^ "Review of Rubano Italian restaurant Le Calandre by Andy Hayler in December 2013". www.andyhayler.com. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
^ "The 16 Coolest Places To Eat In 2016". Forbes. Retrieved 3 December 2017.

Is anyone suggesting that WP:BEFORE was followed here?

This AfD discussion starts with quoting a boilerplate saying the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient ..., but notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, and to evaluate that requires WP:BEFORE. To add insult to injury, it was obviously the wrong boilerplate being copy-pasted from User:Piotrus/Templates: this is not a biography, and while another kind editor has corrected the AfD category to |O in this diff, the nomination text retains the erroneous and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement.

It is being stated above in regards to previous lists of The World's 50 Best Restaurants that most of those old lists have little visibility, not being archived on the awarding site's (as far as I can tell), being available only in the Internet Archive, which does not suggest this is a lasting, significant recognition (without TIA it would be almost impossible to verify those claims at all). This is a misunderstanding, as (a) whether a source is live or archived is irrelevant to its value (WP:404 etc.), and more importantly (b) we use independent sources, not primary, to judge notability (WP:IS etc.). If, however, one would continue to argue that the live presence of these lists on the contrary suggested "a lasting, significant recognition", then some foot damage is happening here. Go to www.theworlds50best.com and choose LIST from the menu, then choose PREVIOUS LISTS, then choose YYYY LIST. Voila! Took 10 seconds. All lists are live online. I do prefer secondary sources, and a quick search has so far brought about reliable sources confirming Le Calandre's placement on the list for each of the last 9 years. It took me about 15 minutes. So it is not impossible to verify those claims at all.

AfD nominations like these are a waste of community time, gut feeling "notable? dubious, prodding" prods like this are harmful given the lack of WP:BEFORE, and WP:ATD is policy and should be followed. Sam Sailor 13:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the superb rating it received which is veriafiable and the sources provided above do indeed establish notability. Also existence of such vast number of sources in English do surely suggest more will be found in, their language, Italian. Also mass nomination with copy/paste rationale is surely not great idea –Ammarpad (talk) 00:02, 9 December 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 FEMSA. And merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gorditas Doña Tota[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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 (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "more than 200 branches; clearly notable". Unfortunately, size is not a deciding factor - it is a medium sized company, but those are not auto-notable (per cited policies). As I cannot find any sources on this, and the only source (including for claimed size) is self-published, I think it is time to move this to a wider debate. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than 200 branches. Clearly notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. Can you imagine a similar size chain in the UK or USA being deleted? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me spell it for you. Size. Does. Not. Matter. Having few hundred outlets and no coverage in reliable sources means the company is, well, not notable. It is common sense we are not a Yellow Pages listing - even more, this is in fact a policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me patronise you too! That's. Just. Your. Opinion. And stub articles are not just directory entries. That's only if they're for non-notable topics. And that's what we're here to discuss. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I cited policies that this entry fails. You fall on your opinion. That's a small but significant difference. Anyway, I guess we will have to disagree for now, since I don't see how I can persuade you to abandon your opinion. I think this is just a one-two sentence Yellow Page like unencyclopedic entry. You think it is a notable entity. Shrug. We will see what the other participants of this will think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the very margin of acceptability, (still as you say 200 branches). I feel there is enough in this magazine article to fully justify inclusion, provided some more independent references are used. http://www.fooddrink-magazine.com/sections/restaurants/1100-gorditas-dona-tota I did notice in passing that the Spanish version of the Wiki project has an article too and mentions a 2013 FEMSA group investment of $120 MDD (so I added that), fairly notable surely. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BeckenhamBear: Can Food and Drink Magazine be considered reliable? The problem with such niche outlets is that sometimes they are pay-to-print marketing vehicles. Consider this: "Interested in being featured in an upcoming issue? Please contact [email protected] for more information." The odds are that this is the 'pay us if you are interested in a nice, positive, marketing/PR write up in the upcoming issue'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Indeed so, that's why I said "provided some MORE independent references are used". The magazine does spout some (fairly uncontroversial) interesting? core facts that are useful, they just need to be sourced from more independent reliable sources as you point out. I just read the mag article again, considering the (low key) facts presented, it is a fairly good source. It was just an interview after all. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this for something, to compare with it. Morley's Only 35 branches, but well known in London. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one mentioned source above is in a publication that is really just a front for paid advertising. There is nothing suggesting reliable source third party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from the Lancet, is there a magazine that's not a “front” for advertising. There’s no indication that it was paid for; there’s not even a photo, which indicates to me that its likely not to have been. My understanding is it’s the code of practise in the USA to declare interest or put above the title of the article “paid for advertisement” that isn’t the case here. It’s on Bloomberg (God help it) https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=247182537 . What about the Dallas Observer http://www.dallasobserver.com/restaurants/gorditas-doa-tota-opens-in-dallas-7037348 . In reality as it’s a subsidiary of FEMSA, its not likely to draw interest from the Wall Street Journal, and it’s not McDonalds, so I doubt a book will be written. 11 people a day are looking at it on average. That’s 4 more per day than Death of Charlotte Shaw which is showpiece article, that has almost zero notability, goes nowhere in furthering human understanding, wouldn’t get any hits at all without its click-bait title, and takes half an hour to read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BeckenhamBear (talk • contribs) 02:08, December 1, 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly there is no case for deletion here but merging into FEMSA might have been an option. Given the size of the restaurant chain, the coverage, and the sizes of both articles, I have drawn my conclusion that keeping is the correct way forward. gidonb (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to FEMSA as per WP:ATD-M. Per source searches, this may not qualify for a standalone article. However, the suggested merge target article has no mention of this subsidiary company. As such, merging will improve the article and the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge. as suggested DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 13 December 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) 19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Patel[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL and references such as [17] are trivial. He isn't notable based on his business career either; references such as [18] are trivial coverage of him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm fairly certain the first AfD was about a different person of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Just for the record. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more references that demonstrate notability and that coverage is nontrivial. HPLeu (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to clear WP:NPOL. But the references here are not demonstrating that he had preexisting notability for other reasons: nine of the seventeen footnotes here are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage that's substantively about him; two are WP:ROUTINE candidate-directory sources of the type that absolutely any candidate in any election could always show; he's the author, not the subject, of two of them, and the interviewer, not the subject, in a third (but a person gets over a notability criterion by being the subject of the sources, not the creator of them); one is his primary source staff profile on the website of his own employer; and one is a Q&A interview with him on an unreliable blog. There's literally just one reference here (Punjab News Express) that's even remotely acceptable in terms of establishing notability, and one acceptable source isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates to office are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 11 December 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T.O.T.E.[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, probably original research, strong whiff of fringeness and inappropriate synthesis. Famous _dog (c) 11:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 12:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be an essay written by someone who read the book. Not inherently notable ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was only able to find a few mentions of it online. This could possibly have a sentence in another article, but is not notable enough for an article. Natureium (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move Agree that the article is not well sourced, but from some quick searching TOTE doesn't seem to be a fringe topic. It appears to be a model commonly ~~used~~ presented in fields like psychology and education and is described in introductory textbooks. There are plenty of possible citations from which to add context/references to be found in a Google Books search for: TOTE psychology. It also seems like the underlying work, Plans and the Structure of Behavior, is an influential work with over 8,000 citations on Google Scholar and sources like this indicating its status as a pioneering work for developing other models. Quercusechinus (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You have made a good argument for having an article on Plans and the Structure of Behavior, but I looked at one of the first books you link to above and it literally says: "the book had great success... as it happened, the TOTE unit itself did not establish itself as a technical term..." That is literally the first of your references I looked at and it basically says "this isn't a widely used term". In this widely-used psychology textbook, the TOTE is basically a historical footnote. Famous_dog (c) 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's fair. I'm alright with the idea of moving/re-frameing this to be an article about the book.Quercusechinus (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy There's not enough here to justify a merge/redirect, but the article could be improved by the author for subsequent relisting. Wolfson5 (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And be brief. For the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy seems best, following above discussion. While the book using the term appears to be worth an article, it doesn't look like the term itself is sufficiently well known/used. Suggest keeping this material around for a possible book article while removing it from article space. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:35, 6 December 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 01:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of the 1 & 2[edit]

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

@Power~enwiki and Etoombs: Queried speedy delete. Power~enwiki speedy-delete-tagged it as "A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references in the article; only online stores and directories found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there's a very brief review on AllMusic [19] but that's not enough to justify an article on an unremarkable compilation album. And the one line of lead contains OR by describing it as "the most famous DJs of the 80s and 90s"... quite apart from being completely subjective and apparently including Malcolm McLaren as a DJ, the album only features DJs working more in the genre of hip hop, not house, trance, etc. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 7 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False Alarm (band)[edit]

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

Created by a WP:SPA and promoted bya legion of block-evading IPs, leading to a rangeblock. No reliable independent sources to show this meets WP:BAND, never charted, all claims to notability are purely by association. Basically a directory entry created by someone associated with the band or (best case) their biggest fan. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a couple of reviews of False Alarm albums, one from 2013 in Big Wheel magazine and the other from Sugar Buzz magazine published I think in 2008. All the other references I saw were brief mentions of the band in relation to the early history of either Fat Mike of NOFX or Cheetah Chrome of the Dead Boys. Binksternet (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. For an anti-establishment punk band, they've gotten some ink/pixels over the years. I added Binksternet's two reviews, for which thanks, and a couple of things I found myself, one of which is a primary source but sorted out the history a bit, and the others are independent reviews. I did find one ringer: there appears to have been a London punk band of the same name. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With Yngvadottir's expansion and refs, I think we are in comfortable territory keeping this article. It's useful to the occasional reader, and not promotional or false. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as additional reliable sources have been added as detailed above, passes WP:GNG altough needs watching to stop any promo additions Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 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. Leaving renames to post-close. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Szczuczyn pogrom[edit]

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

Highly problematic, WP:OR/WP:N issues. No reliable sources discuss 'Szczuczyn pogrom' (pl. 'Pogrom w Szczuczynie'). While it does appear that there were some crimes committed on Jews in that region ([20]) it does not seem likely that this crime was notable, nor that this is the correct term for it. Pl wiki uses the term 'crime', not 'pogrom', see pl:Szczuczyn_(województwo_podlaskie)#Zbrodnia_w_Szczuczynie Naming aside, I am not sure if the crime is notable, most related publications talk about the related 'Bzura crime' (pl:Mord w Bzurach, [21], [22]), and the events in Szczuczyn did not get enough coverage. The article makes some claims about a wider pogrom (100 deaths) but I cannot find source to support that claim. It is likely the author confused time and place of several other events. In either case I think it qualifies for deletion due to mistakes/OR/N, or plain WP:TNT mess. Ping User:Poeticbent. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The sole question here is whether to use massacre or pogrom (both are used by sources). Polish POV, as reflected by Polish wikipedia, is not a source for anything (The Polish government is attempting to rewrite history - denying the complicity of Poles in the holocaust, and attempting to outlaw the term "Polish death camp" - Poland's New Government Looks to Rewrite Polish Role in the Holocaust). There are ample sources on the massacre/pogrom in Szczuczyn by Poles prior to the German occupation, e.g. - [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. After the Germans bypassed the town on their way foward, the locals killed some ~300 Jews by an axe wielding mob on 28 June, killed ~100 jews on 24 July, +possibly some other incidents (e.g. the murder of the 11 women farm hands - not sure if this is the same Szczuczyn), leaving ~600 Jews for the Germans to kill in August (and pack the remaining Jews into a ghetto, and subsequently off (fairly early) to Treblinka extermination camp - AFAIK there were very few survivors from Szczuczyn (they did however cobble together a Yizkor book with more details - [29]) - the "efficiency" in 1941-2 perhaps reduced the amount of coverage - which still reaches GNG).Icewhiz (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the place has several variant spellings in Yiddish/Hebrew as well as a town in present day Belarus with the same name in Polish (Shchuchyn in enwiki per translit from Belarussian) where circumstances were different. Very few survived Szczuczyn - those who did mostly left (voluntarily or forcibly) in 1939-41 (during the Soviet occupation), some Hebrew sources - Yad Vashem entry, Polish Jewish heritage center entry, yizkor book, book by a survivor (online version), who left eastwards by covers the town in an appendix.Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also - Kopstein, Jeffrey S., and Jason Wittenberg. "Deadly communities: Local political milieus and the persecution of Jews in occupied Poland." Comparative Political Studies 44.3 (2011): 259-283. - that discusses the events as a pogrom (referring to the Chaye Golding PRIMARY letter that is questioned in the article at present) and discusses the motivations and causes leading the Poles to massacre the Jews.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of completeness, and I'm bringing this up due to the nom asserting the Polish Wikipedia (While it does appear that there were some crimes committed on Jews in that region ([30]) it does not seem likely that this crime was notable, nor that this is the correct term for it. Pl wiki uses the term 'crime', not 'pogrom', see pl:Szczuczyn_(województwo_podlaskie)#Zbrodnia_w_Szczuczynie as a source (the POV of which I've commented above) - this is described in length in hewiki entry on town(towns with little content on hewiki other than the massacres/Jewish history don't always get a standalone massacre), ~~ruwiki entry on the Pogrom, and uawiki entry on the Pogrom. So we have 3 at least cross-wikis here.~~ Perhaps someone should update the Polish wikipedia entry on the town (assuming it is still legal (in Poland) to do so)?Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Struck since it appears uawiki and ruwiki are very recent and possibly same author - however the Hebrew article dates back to 2015.Icewhiz (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Icewhiz has shown enough RS to establish notability. The article needs a lot of work but definitely appears to have notability. - Galatz ^Talk 12:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As discussed above, notability has been demonstrated. The proper naming and transliteration of Polish orthography needs to be addressed and further sourcing added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article can be cleaned up using massive number of WP:RSs provided by Icewhiz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Referencing in this article is an absolute joke right now. We know that the Szczuczyn community existed as shown by weblinks provided by User:Icewhiz. Most of those links confirm the existence (!) of that community, period. This is not a part of the original write-up by User:Roman Frankiv from Ukraine (159 edits). Historian Anna Bikont (ISBN 0374710325) writes that (allegedly) a mass murder was committed in the forest near Szczuczyn by a man who was sentenced to death by the Stalinists in 1950 (the Stalinists themselves were a criminal organization). Do you see a difference between the two claims? Poeticbent talk 15:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article can easily be improved - and some of the problems in the article seem to arise from POV pushing after the initial version (and not by the author) - e.g. this one revision 811723148 is a reasonable description of events (sourcing should've been improved - but sources are readily available). The 1950 trial of a side incident to the whole affair (the good town folk - who went about and murdered 300 Jews with axes in June 1941 (while the town was not under German occupation, as they bypassed it and didn't enter - ironically (wrongly per later events) Jews in Szczuczyn greeted the Wehrmacht in relief upon their entry due to the atrocities commited against them by the townfolk) - were not tried by the Polish communist government). This Kopstein, Jeffrey S., and Jason Wittenberg. "Deadly communities: Local political milieus and the persecution of Jews in occupied Poland." Comparative Political Studies 44.3 (2011): 259-283. and this The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before and During the Holocaust: Seredina-Buda-Z, page 1276, Szczuczyn amply source the two "main" events by Poles - the massacre of 300 Jews in June, and 100 more in July.Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't wp:bludgeon me with links which do not confirm your wayward claims. Prewar Poland was a multi-ethnic country, and names such as Yakubtshuk, Shviatlovski, Yankayitis (from Kopstein & Wittenberg), certainly do not sound Polish. Poeticbent talk 15:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OR, though possibly correct, however the fact that the residents of Szczuczyn (Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Ruthenian, German (minority outside Germany), etc.) massacred the Jewish population of the town has been amply demonstrated by RS. Kopstein&Wittenberg published in Comparative Political Studies as a peer reviewed journal is a RS, and this journal article has been cited by others.Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are ample sources on the massacres (or June-July 1941 pogrom) in Szczuczyn, and additional ones in the region, and all this in multiple languages. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There might be some problems with the article but the subject itself is certainly notable (though in regard to Icewhiz's comment above I also have no idea what the Polish government is suppose to have with the Polish wikipedia). Volunteer Marek 14:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: The Polish government, elected by the Polish people, reflects the POV of some of the Polish people (presumably those who voted for them). Furthermore, when it is illegal (or poposed to be illegal) to who publicly and against the facts, accuse the Polish nation, or the Polish state, [of being] responsible or complicit in Nazi crimes committed by the III German Reich punishable by prison terms of up to three years[31] - editors in Poland may be under duress / criminal liability. Polish ministers deny Polish involvement in Jedwabne pogrom (incidentally - one of the editors here pushing for deletion - removed the holocaust sidebar there - diff), and Kielce pogrom - Two Senior Polish Ministers Deny Poles' Involvement in Massacres of Jews. And this isn't a "new" 2016-2017 "thing", as may be seen here - Shafir, Michael. Between denial and “comparative trivialization”: Holocaust negationism in post-Communist East Central Europe. No. 19. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, 2002.. I hope this makes the POV/legal situation on the Polish Wikipedia clearer.Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that - the Macleans source - is an op-ed from a very biased author who's book was roundly criticized by professional historians. The op-ed makes several false assertions (for example it is completely untrue that Jaroslaw Szarek "flatly denied Polish involvement in, and responsibility for, the communal genocide in Jedwabne in 1941". Also no such law as you mention actually exists, nor has actually been proposed afaict, what you're quoting is some media sensationalism from a two year old interview). The source basically falls within WP:FRINGE. Nobody's prosecuting anybody for editing Polish wikipedia. That's ridiculous and a bit unhinged. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, all that's off topic. And these WP:NOTAFORUM kinds of comments are really irrelevant to the topic's notability. Volunteer Marek 16:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources - Poland wants to outlaw phrases like 'Polish death camps', CNN, August 2016, Nazi atrocities: Implying Polish guilt to become crime, BBC, Feb 2016. But you are correct, I will cease commenting on this.Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think some of the confusion above stems from the fact that there were more than one spate of murders around the town and different sources discuss different events. Volunteer Marek 16:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Icewhiz provided a couple of good RS in response to Poeticbent. If I understand correctly, no one claims these accounts were fake. Given that, the pogrom was a matter of fact and sufficiently well documented. Is it notable enough to have a page? It does seem to be notable, especially since there is an article about it in an encyclopedia about Holocaust [32]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Icewhiz has produced enough reliable sources to establish notability of the topic. My suggestion would be to consider renaming the article to plural, as it describes several waves of violence that took place over at least three months. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good work by Icewhiz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Better sources have addressed my concerns, however the closing admin may want to move the article to plural pogroms or start a RM per several reasonable suggestions here. (Piotrus on alt account). --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 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 Salbari. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's English school, Salbari[edit]

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

I've not been able to find reliable sources that establish that this school actually exists. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The search link at the top of this page reveals one source that wasn't showing up when I manually searched Google. It doesn't really tell us anything about the school though. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Salbari. It can be forked later if WP:N and WP:V are established, when there is enough detail to merit a separate article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salbari per standard practice for elementary/primary schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about this school merits mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 7 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical data studies[edit]

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

Not a notable field of research. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discussed in Ben Williamson (24 July 2017). Big Data in Education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. SAGE Publications. pp. 38–. ISBN 978-1-5264-1632-2., Stefan Selke (14 June 2016). Lifelogging: Digital self-tracking and Lifelogging - between disruptive technology and cultural transformation. Springer. pp. 63–. ISBN 978-3-658-13137-1. and several other works. New, but seems notable to me. Nominator seems to have totally ignored WP:BEFORE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the !vote above. Needs some rewriting for comprehensibility to outsiders, but that's just standard for academic prose. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in reliable sources as shown by Piotrus, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 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) 19:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Keane[edit]

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

Article feels like an advertisement, and in my opinion doesn't make many claims for notability. The "Class of 2016" designation from Mix Magazine is about a shared studio space and not really related, as far as I can tell. Owlsmcgee (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--TM 14:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin, and we do not have articles on every person who has been paid to play at weddings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 10 December 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 Salbari. as per usual process for non notable elementary schools Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjarang Boro Foraisali,Salbari[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a primary school, and the only sources I can find are listings showing that the school exists, not that it is notable. Primary schools aren't notable, generally, unless they meet GNG and I can't find that this one does. Previously deleted per WP:PROD and recreated. bonadea contributions talk 07:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:24, 5 December 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Termux[edit]

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

Jumble of aimless text about non-notable subject. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any reliable third-party sources on the subject, and the article itself doesn't have any either. Fails to meet WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are neither reliable nor independent nor do they have any value in asserting notability. This has not been helped by the blatant COI editing over the last two days. A big give -away was this Linux link in one ref wget https://sdrausty.github.io/TermuxArch/setupTermuxArch.sh which seems to clarify the relationship between the recent prolific editor and the article subject. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: Check the links and references for requested information. --SDRausty (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyosho Double Dare[edit]

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

Only references are to a niche magazine, and I couldn't find any better ones online. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Toy? Fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 5 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra–Azerbaijan relations[edit]

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

No particular claim of notability. Unless all bi-lateral relations are notable, there's no reason to believe this one is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no inherent notability. all there is diplomatic recognition and nothing else. LibStar (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relations between two entities with mutual recognition and notability. Tart (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

simply having recognition does not give inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expanded the article. Now it has more relevance. Super Ψ Dro 14:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibsStar. Also, what expansion? What there is, is pretty much indistinguishable from a short directory listing. --Calton | Talk 22:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How that what expansion? Look at the previous version, when that article was nominated and now, please. The truth, I do not know why, instead of fixing it, you are making a vote to delete the article. Super Ψ Dro 23:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_138#Articles_on_bi-lateral_relations may be of interest when closing this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The default criterion for inclusion is meeting WP:GNG and this bilateral- relationship doesn't meet it. After similar AfDs like this now there's this attempt to agree on policy or guideline concerning whether countries relationships are automatically notable. But in the meantime that's only proposal, therefore only WP:SIGCOV of their relationship can be used to establish notability. And for this article there is no such sources and the stub is nothing save to show each country know the other exists. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of Azerbaijan and Foreign relations of Andorra, both of which have tables for keeping track of the details of visits that this article now includes. MarginalCost (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LibStar. While I agree that the article has been expanded since then, I don't agree that there's an awful lot more going for it. GNG wasn't met and still isn't. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't understand why people create pages as esoteric as this and I certainly don't understand why people obsess and make a hobby of deleting them. This particular one fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not know that you could not create esoteric pages. In that case, tell me what I have to create. Super Ψ Dro 14:23, 12 December 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 Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return. As a footnote: if your !vote is for a redirect, please don't say it's "Delete by...", "Soft delete..." or anything other than "redirect". A redirect is a redirect. A delete is a delete. And never the twain shall meet. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summertime Entertainment[edit]

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

Delete There is not a single source for Summertime Entertainment. It has produced only one film, Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return. I don't know if this company will produce any upcoming animated films. I also think that this company is defunct and future sequels of Legends of Oz, Dorothy's Return might be handled by a different animation studio. There are no indications of notability, and it fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Evil Idiot 23:19, 14 November 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 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found three sources, but the real story appears to be the two founders, the Carroll brothers, who have had at least one production company before this and reportedly went on to Stereo Vision Entertainment (unreliable source), and whose fundraising methods have raised complaints and led to censure in various states. I'm not sure where this story best fits, especially since I started getting into unreliable sources and was unable to confirm the company closing down in 2015 as the article states. Otherwise I would argue for a change of focus and move to an article on the founders with redirects from Summertime, Alpine Productions, and possibly others. But there are three sources about the company now in the article, so I'm coming down on the "keep" side. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,, Business idea that went under, nothing good at the end of the day meant a waste of an article. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete by redirecting to Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return. ~~Maybe in few years they'll become notable if they keep making stuff like that.~~ As they went under, that's not likely... For now, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return since operations did not extend beyond this film. gidonb (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by redirecting to Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return as suggested above. Ventric (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I third that. For example, Majestic Studios redirects to its only production, Limbo of the Lost, for similar reasons. 165.91.13.3 (talk) 03:53, 8 December 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. Interviews dont count to notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Adnan[edit]

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

no in depth coverage in the RS. Saqib (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I have added more information and links in RS. Length has also been shortened. If this is still not acceptable, please leave some detail notes as to what needs to be done here. Sayyonee19 (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ally Adnan is a notable newspaper columnist and a journalist in Pakistan. He regularly writes for many leading English language newspapers of Pakistan including The Express Tribune, The Nation (Pakistan) and Daily Times (Pakistan). I personally have been using his written articles on music as References to edit on Wikipedia for nearly 5 years. Also today, I went ahead and tried to improve the original article and have fixed some given references by the original article creator User:Sayyonee19. The article creator deserves some credit here for leaving me 11 references to work with including 4 major newspapers of Pakistan...THANKS...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to keep this BLP. --Saqib (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References to a recently published interview of Ally Adnan has also been included now. Additionally, his interviews of singers and actors are actually referenced in other wikipedia pages such as Reference 3 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahira_Syed and reference 14 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Malik. There are also other examples such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tari_Khan & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rais_Khan. This, along 12+ citations from well known national Pakistani news papers and magazines is pretty decent coverage. Sayyonee19 (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Sayyonee19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have removed sources which are non-independent to the subject. This BLP still contains several questionable sources such as videos. --Saqib (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just now I saw the comment above that User:Sayyonee19 has not written anything on Wikipedia outside of this topic. This is a separate issue for Wikipedia staff to look into. In my view, that should not affect the status of an article about a well-known and noted journalist, movie and music critic of Pakistan, Ally Adnan. Yes, I am calling him that because three major newspapers of Pakistan namely- Dawn (newspaper), The Express Tribune, The Nation (Pakistan) have been featuring his written articles for several years on the above topics. Daily Times (Pakistan), Newsline (magazine) have also been printing his articles. Not Notable? How much more proof does one need? It's a short stub-article that had 11 different references on 22 November 2017, when I had last worked on it. Yes, I like reading his articles. It's one of the reasons I worked on it to try to improve it. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing or working for major newspaper doesn't makes one notable automatically. --Saqib (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Let's both think about it. Then why would Wikipedia constantly remind us all to give references from major newspapers? I'll say again that many major newspapers of Pakistan have been featuring his articles over several years now. In my view, he's a notable journalist....Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier above writing for newspapers does not make one's notable. You need to read WP:BIO because you're misinterpreting the policy which instead says which says A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agrees with Saqib that we need significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 06:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One interview and a little coverage that he was speaking in an event not enough. Need coverage about him - not from him. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One can only try to keep two inter-related topics separate just so much. After all, Wikipedia biography articles generally have a list of books (bibliography) written by a writer on his article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:28, 11 December 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Barbusca[edit]

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

BLP of a 14 year old without sources. Seems better to delete if there are none. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:NACTOR. Article had been redirected to a film for over a year. Even if the consensus were to Merge or Redirect, which work would we direct to? -TinGrin 06:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tingrin87: We would need sources showing that, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 19:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- kid is a main character of show on major network.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, there must be sources, right. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Credible claim of notability based on his acting roles, backed up by reliable and verifiable sources about him. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some more news articles and magazine interviews in the refideas section of the talk page. He's notable for his starring role in The Mick and for having a starring character in the Middle School film. He also has a major role as Drew in Wet Hot American Summer: First Day of Camp which is on Netflix. Is that enough to meet WP:ENT? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources described above and also passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vendome (restaurant)[edit]

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

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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 (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " one of the top 50 restaurants in the world is probably notable". Then User:SwisterTwister redirected it to Schloss Bensberg (historic building it is located in), which was again reverted by Necrothesp. I think a merge to that article would be a good idea. I don't see how this restaurant is independently notable. Claim that "The restaurant was voted 34th best in the world in Restaurant magazine's Top 50 2008" is backed up by a broken reference and other claims are simply unreferenced. Even if they can be referenced, I don't see what do those rankings have to do with notability. Unless there are reliable sources discussing those businesses, the most that such rankings can do is to provide a reference for some lists. We don't need two-sentence stand alone articles about restaurants that are just PR/marketing. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Michelin 3-star restaurant[33] and widely described as one of the country's most important, multiple coverage in English and German is apparent in searches. [34] ("the epitome of modern German cuisine") [35][36]etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Are those reliable sources of PR materials? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't help wondering why you're so desperate to get these articles deleted. Very odd indeed. They're recognised by their peers as among the best restaurants in the world, yet you really, really seem to despise articles on them as though they were the sort of puff piece created by someone about a minor band that nobody's ever heard of. In what possible way is this benefiting the project? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Necrothesp: I have nothing against them except I am worried about the Yellow Pages spam-like creep in this project. But clerly the recent discussions have demonstrated that the community considers at the very least that any restaurant with 1 or more Michelin stars is notable. Therefore I'd like to invite you to draft a paragraph to that account and add it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes so that we can codify the consensus I am seeing here. I am not sure if there is consensus that without the star, inclusion in the Restaurant Top 50 guide is sufficient, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Michelin-starred restaurant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Michelin star is enough for notability, but expansion is needed. South Nashua (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep broken reference or lack of it in article not reason for deletion WP:NEXIST. this is top-rated restaurant in Germany, ranked 34th in world, recognized by peers and Michelin star, this is clearly notable, only not well sourced. And when searching of sources we must search in German also, also that's the main language where the subject exist –Ammarpad (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- best rated Michelin restaurant in Germany is a sufficient claim of significance, IMO. Here's some coverage: [http://www.bonviveur.es/restaurantes/vendome-el-templo-del-sabor-de-joachim-wissler "Vendôme, the taste temple of Joachim Wissler:

JWissler is one of the most creative chefs in Germany and one of the great masters of flavor, as demonstrated in his restaurant, Vendôme, in Bergisch Gladbach. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable enough, given its recognition by Michelin rating and by peers. Kierzek (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient notability has been established. Wikipedia has actual legitimate things to worry about that aren't "Yellow Pages spam-like creep" hiding under the project's bed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Michelin 3-star is enough for notability--probably enough to say actually famous. It's the highest possible rating for a formal restaurant in what is the best-known international guide. I see we have articles on only about half of them; I suggest that the effort going into defending the promotional references for nondescript fast-food chains might be better used in write those 50 or so articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Best restaurant in the country, 3 Michelin stars since 2005, ranked consistently among the 50 best restaurants in the world since 2008, and all that and more can be backed up by sources. I have added a few. Sam Sailor 14:41, 9 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7700 16th Street NW[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO. The two crimes that took place in the building are notable (and Wikipedia has articles about them), but there is absolutely no indication that the building itself is notable. The sources describe what happened there, they describe the building's owners and its neighborhood, but none of them actually describe the building. Please see related discussions at Talk:1973 Hanafi Muslim massacre#Proposed merge with 7700 16th Street NW and Talk:7700 16th Street NW#Notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is inevitably going to be a claim that this building is covered "extensively" in sources; that would be an incorrect assertion. Yes, the building is passively mentioned in the context of notable incidents, but it is never written about as a notable building. WP:NGEO explicitly states: "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events". Considering the majority of the article is now devoted to incidents that transpired within it and sources about the events are crammed into the text to fabricate the illusion of multiple sources, it is too obvious this building fails NGEO and GNG. I strongly urge editors to evaluate the sources before being fooled by what appears to be a bounty of coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we make the mistake of keeping this article (which is looking entirely likely), can we at least address the WP:SYNTH and the fact this has become a content fork for the notable events that already have an article?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are we going to put up 10050 Cielo Drive (Manson "family" house, that I presume isn't a cause for POV issues) to AfD on the same rationale? This isn't a WP:GEOFEAT fail - as the geo guideline for buildings notable for social (e.g. crime) reasons is Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. - basically WP:GNG - the crime site could be notable per GEO, the question is sources available on the place.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have put WP:OSE as another one of the "inevitable claims" I expected above but thought editors would know better; I was proven wrong. I do not know how you can argue this passes NGEO when no sources are actually about the place and the policy explicitly states geographical features, including buildings, do not inherent notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz's point seems to be that houses (see: Lizzie Borden House,) can become notable for the crimes committed in them, Category:Buildings associated with crimes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually haven't taken a position yet - I brought up 10050 Cielo Drive since that is not a POV battleground article. The house is discussed - e.g. [37] - in a $78,000 home donated to the sect as a Washington headquarters by Kareem‐Abdul Jabber, the professional basketball star who is a member of the sect.. This isn't an obvious GNG fail - the house appears in RSes for over 40 years - the only question really is WP:DEPTH of coverage - which is not so easy to assess given the fairly large amount of appearances coupled with the need for archive access (1970s-80s is actually a tricky period to source - most of the archives are non-free, not everything was digitized, goolge-books is often limited to snippet or no preview).Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a MILHIST issue here, as this was the HQ of a militant group in 1977 Washington, D.C. attack and hostage taking - we generally do keep military/militant installations.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per ongoing Merge discussion. Decide, either close this or the merge discussion. WP:GNG applies here anyway, plus extensive sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging would be dysfunctional because the house is notable for three quite separate events, each of major significance. 1.) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar purchased this house for his mentor in Islam Hamaas Abdul Khaalis when he was very new to Islam - still called Lew Alcindor.) He gifted it to Khaalis for use as an Hanafi center. Jabbar and his wife were married in this house. 2.) It was the scene of the 1973 Hanafi Muslim massacre - an attack on this sect by a faciton of the Nation of Islam, and it was the largest mass murder that had ever been committed in Washington, D.C.; 3.) It was Hanafi headquarters - and the place where an arsenal of weapons was stockpiled in preparation for 1977 Washington, D.C. attack and hostage taking, an attack by this Hanafi sect in which armed militants from this house took 149 hostages at the City Hall), B'nai B'rith headquarters, and the Islamic Center of Washington, holding them at gunpoint during a 39-hour standoff. Two innocent people were killed in the attack during which members of the sect held press conferences by phone from inside the house and on the lawn. Khaalis' son-in-law Abdul Azziz stood on the lawn and told journalists that, "Heads will be chopped off, a killing room will be set up at B'nai B'rith and heads will be thrown out of windows." Article is heavily sourced to WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS that begins with the house's early owners and continued through 2017. But because ownershop of and events that took place at this house form a significant aspect not only of the religious carer of a man who is arguably America's most notable convert to Islam, but also are a significant part of two extremely notable crimes (events totally unrelated to Jabbar,) it seems more useful to keep it as a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
INDEPTH sources on house include: Newsday: 7 Killings Started Islamic Holy War, Washington Post: "Reclusive Hanafis Still Mystery to Neighbors", and (Mayor Marion) "Barry 'A Very Lucky Man" These and several others include details about the house itself. An account of the purchase by Kareem Abdul-Jabar is in Philadelphia Inquirer, "Giant Steps - An Angry Young Man Embraces Islam and a Boycott". apologies for the fact that Inquirer and Newsday are vial Proquest, which is password protected; I am not certain whether WaPo archive is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm satisfied by the sourcing above, coupled with the 3 notable incidents, that the house or at least its use as the Hanafi Madh-Hab Center is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is anyone going to read the sources Gregory provided, supposedly about the building? It takes a few seconds for each to realize that the sources are not about the house but rather the notable events and people. NGEO already clearly states notability isn't inherited to them despite Gregory's !vote and GNG is not met by passing mentions. I would like to believe everyone here understands those basic policies.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this page is not architecture-related. It is about an ordinary, posh 1920s "Tudor-style" house, presumably built on spec by a real estate developer. Reminds me of 81-15 Wareham Place. It is notable for having had a famous owner, been the site of an infamous crime, and used by a radical cult that carried out a spectacular deadly attack on downtown Washington D.C.. No one claims that it is architecturally notable. Q. Is it permitted to remove an AfD fomr an erroneous list. I ask because I often see cases where topic experts see, for example, a notable athlete who had a small role or two in a film listed on a of actors for AfD and iVote, "delete, not a notable actor." In other words, this sort of mistake can queer an AfD. Anyone know if there is a way to remove such misleading listings? E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A point of reference is a part of the gazetteer. Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The events in the house are related, rather than simply random crime sthat merely happenned to take place here, so the place itself is notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the focus of much of the articles is not on the house, there is enough coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or repurpose as an article on Hanafi Madh‐Hab. The two crimes were clearly related: an attack by Black Muslims, presumably objecting to a different Muslim group; and a return attack to try to recover the jailed culprits of the first attack. Both attacks have articles and there is a proposal (which may not be appropriate) to merge this article to the first one. However we might merge both here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:TheGracefulSlick changed her iVote above from Delete to Comment.[38] @TheGracefulSlick:, a highly experienced editor, to return and do this the proper way by: ~~Delete~~ and replace.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory no but thanks. Editors who tend to look for the smallest lapses of policy -- the "proper way" -- tend to be the biggest offenders of it. By the way, no one commented on my !vote, I didn't change the actual content, and it was a courtesy so this can be snow closed. So, actually, you are welcome.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks as though an editor responded, you responded back to him, and, in all events, opinions are intended influence subsequent iVOtes. Bottom line: however you define "respond" it is clear that you ought to follow WP:REDACT and fix the edit. Editors who drag as many fellow editors to ANI as you do ought to take care to be purer than Caesar's wife.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory no...but thanks again. I don't claim to be perfect or "pure". And you must have me confused with someone else: I only reported you once and the community decided you had a problem with bludgeoning that could be sanctionable if it continued. Now, if you have any more cheap shots feel free to unload them at my talk page instead at an AFD. You know, it's the "proper way" and all.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:22, 12 December 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivendra Singh[edit]

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

Article does not have reliable sources, and contains some biased text. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Searches returns sources covering Trivendra Singh Rawat, a politician. theinstantmatrix (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Fails WP:NBIO right now, and the structure is very poor that if it is deemed notable it should be userfied in draft space. Not ready for public readership. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Poor quality is not grounds for deletion. Nothing here supposes the subject is not notable.Egaoblai (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are passing mentions in 1,2 and 3, and though the subject appears to be significant in one category of table tennis, we have no no independent in-depth coverage to back it up. Further, This edit from another article (and the history of that user page) is indicative of the nominated article being an autobiography. MT Train^Discuss 11:55, 5 December 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) 19:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Loughan[edit]

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

Support for Deletion This page purports to espouse the successes and scientific discoveries of "Max Loughan". Aside from being a deviation of scientific communication curiosity, Max Loughan is being portrayed as some nuanced, original thinker and scientist. Simply regurgitating the ideas of other scholars into a slightly more masticated form does not a scientist maketh. His YouTube videos do not have any empirical scientific value. The off-camera 'father' (assumed actor) offering what is seemingly overly fawning adulation for "complicated theory that no one except for you [Max] will understand," forces us to surmise that this voice is not impartial nor an objective anchor of scientific relevance. Add in also that there have been no significantly documented accomplishments, nor have there been consistent accounts of his progress. I assert that this article should be deleted as this person has yet to establish relevance under the Wikipedia standards. Ventric (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for additional clarity. Ventric (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Support for Deletion References 18-20 are either unconfirmed, unresponsive, or subjective at best. Ventric (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original Editor Blocked Indefinitely The original editor who added the page User:Akrumoftruth was blocked indefinitely for infractions to the standards of Wikipedia. Ventric (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing a lot here I would call in depth coverage. Seems all a but unnotable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many low-quality sources that all copy each other do not in-depth coverage make. And enrolling in EdX is not a marker of notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No legitimate WP:RS, except for local TV and maybe silly news, i.e. basic WP:DOGBITESMAN type coverage which takes Loughan's claims at face value. I did see this, but turns out it's a reader blog legally disclaimed by Inc. magazine. (On a side note, a young person who successfully bamboozled lots of adults by misrepresenting the small amount of current in the audio output of a crystal radio set as a miraculous "free energy" discovery could be notable enough, provided reliable sources cover that aspect sometime in the future). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt This is shaping up as a repeat of the Jacob Barnett case, except that things haven't advanced far enough to show who is behind pushing a minor forward as the face of what smells of a free energy scam. Even ignoring the poor quality of the sourcing, WP:BLP of a not-actually-a-prodigy underaged kid should be reason enough to delete this and bury it in a salt mine. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per the Sagan standard: all of the notability is tied up in his supposed free energy woo thing, which "purportedly harvests radio waves from the atmosphere and converts them to a direct current which can be used to power small electrical devices like LED lights". Just imagine, if you hooked it to a speaker rather than an LED you could have invented the radio receiver...120 years too late. Almost all the sources for this are junk web sites and the exception, KTVN, appears to be a local TV news interview by people of no technical expertise. The remaining sources do not convey notability. The fact that the subject is a minor and should eventually be embarrassed by this incident only adds to the reasons for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is sort of a repeat of the Jacob Barnett case, but he has not gotten any coverage in major news shows, a book published on him, findings of psychologists, is too old now to make a big splash by going to college and taking "college courses online at 14" is just not that unusual. I knew at least two people when I was at BYU who had enrolled there at age 15, and these days many universities and community colleges have quite extensive programs for high schools students to be involved in dual enrollment. Beyond this, at least in theory Advanced Placement courses are meant to be a college level (weather or not they always are is another question), and while most people taking them are junior and seniors, I took one of only two high school AP classes as a sophmore. Loughan is not at all notable at present, and we definately should not expose a minor to the type of ridicule this article would expose him to if his claims ever are evaluated by people who have are more incredulous than are at times much too naive on matters of math and science run-of-the mill journalists. In fact, I hesitate to use that word for some TV news people who seem to lack any of the needed discretion, but considering the type of hoaxes that have also been perpetrated on print journalists in a wide array of subjects, I think there is a need for more skepticism towards the claims of other people in general, although I general oppose synicism, and am a strong deliever in the need for faith. I just do not think people are wise when they put their faith too quickly in their fellow men, espcially when it is done in a way primarily designed to further narratives they construct primarily by ignoring reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 9 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Livin' in the City[edit]

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

No reliable sources whatsoever. The reason: there just isn't any indepth sources to be found. I presume the article was created by someone who enjoys the song but that alone does not pass WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheGracefulSlick. The Village Voice lists this song amongst The best love songs inspired by NYC.[39] The magazine's review of the song is also included here. Eckhard Gerdes, in his book, The Literary Terrorism of Harold Jaffe, reviews the song on page 66.[40] More reviews of the song can be found in books like Power Misses: Essays Across (un)popular Culture, City Images: Perspectives from Literature, Philosophy and Film etc. The leitmotif of all these reviews is that the song exemplified the punk culture prevalent in the West. The song also got an honorable mention in The 100 Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Songs Ever.[41] Team Rock magazine called the song "Fear's classic debut single...".[42] Miami New Times listed the song at #7 on the Top 20 Classic Hardcore Punk Songs list.[43] But the best description I loved of the song was this one given by Village Voice: “I Love Livin’ in the City” is both their magnum opus and an instantly recognizable battle cry for anyone who calls this big, beautiful bastard city home... I would prefer to Keep this article. It can be improved eventually. What do you think? Thanks, Lourdes 13:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the few mentions you found, the song would be an appropriate redirect and better described in the article about the band.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article on Fear (band)Vorbee (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Lourdes' sources above, this song was indeed a significant early-punk landmark and so I think deletion has been shown to be inappropriate. Given the multiple sources describing the record's relevance and legacy, I think it is preferable to keep it rather than merge.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources demonstrate a reason to mention the song in the band's article; hence a redirect would be more beneficial.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:52, 5 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of PKNA characters[edit]

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

Non notable list of characters from the comic book PKNA. No indication of notability, creation, development or reception. Redirect to PKNA#Characters. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PKNA#Characters is just a link to this article, so "redirect to PKNA#Characters" would effectively erase the content, by changing it to a link linking to itself. JIP | Talk 15:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Even the parent article has questionable notability. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The character list article might be fancruft, but I certainly consider PKNA itself notable enough to warrant an article. JIP | Talk 20:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much the definition of fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:11, 10 December 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 PKNA. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evroniani[edit]

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

Non notable list of characters from the comic book PKNA. No indication of notability, creation, development or reception. Redirect to PKNA#Characters. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. No indication of notability, entirely unsourced. Sro23 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is redirected, then please take note that PKNA#Characters is just a link to List of PKNA characters, which is itself nominated for deletion, with the proposed action of "redirect to PKNA#Characters". Going by this route would erase not only the content about Evroniani, but also about every other PKNA character as well, because we would be left with a section consisting only of a "main article" link, which would then proceed to link to itself. JIP | Talk 15:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:19, 11 December 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly Aanchal[edit]

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

Search turns up nothing. This is one of many dummy publications in Pakistan. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Störm (talk · contribs), seemingly previously known as Greenbörg, never googles before adding an AfD, at some point this charade needs to stop. Regarding Aanchal, "The reading needs of the modern woman were fulfilled by the digests, seven of which (Pakeezah, Dosheezah, Khawateen Digest, Hina Digest, Kiran, Anchal and Angan) are on the top of the readership list." ([44]), "There are over a dozen monthly publications for women today: Hoor, Kiran, Anchal, Khawateen Digest and Pakeeza being some of the major ones." ([45]) --Soman (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand with what I said above after doing necessary checks. Nothing in my Google search ([46]) and ([47]) so thats why I said 'nothing'. If we accept your source (which looks vanity) then it only verifies subject but need more diverse coverage to pass WP:GNG. I changed my user name to hide my identity but you are trying to reveal the identity which you should stop. If you want to target me then please find better way or talk to me directly rather indirectly. Störm (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are newspapers which were prominent in the 1990s. They had a significant circulation as Soman noted, so it is not necessary to have current prominence to be notable. Per lack of WP:BEFORE, I agree for a snow keep. Mar4d (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mention in books don't establish notability. I don't see proof of significance, either through circulation, or impact. (Also, "Monthly Aanchal" =/= "Anchal" which the sources mention).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 5 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balochwarna News[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs, non notable. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could have been briefer by saying "No Refs, NN." That would have shaved a word off it! LOL Szzuk (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the article does have refs. – Uanfala 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people are entitled to their opinions, aren't they? Now back to the facts: this article has one reference, it is to a book that only seems to mention the topic in passing, so of course this is not in itself enough to establish notability. – Uanfala 20:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. Can you find any other refs? I looked but came up blank. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being listed as a news site prevented from doing what its goal is to do in no way shows that the newssite is having coverage and impactful. Beyond this, the one citation could well be a long list of websites Pakistan has blocked, nothing indicates it is an indepth coverage of this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 10 December 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiltan FM 88[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BCAST. Störm (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Radio stations are not automatically presumed notable just because they have their own self-published websites — people have created fake web content for the purposes of "verifying" a hoax topic into Wikipedia, and internet radio stations with no inherent notability have branded themselves to create the appearance of broadcasting on real terrestrial radio, so the website does not in and of itself prove that the station actually passes WP:NMEDIA's conditions for the notability of a radio station. And further, the website is actually quite strange in a number of ways ("This is CHILTAN FM 88 NETWORK, a rich featured, epic, mature and premium work, destined for the typical modern website that needs to stand out.") that aren't adequately explained as a mere translation issue — and there's also a conflict between this article, which claims an ERP of just one kilowatt, and the website, which claims a broadcast range of over 300 kilometres. Even if this is a real terrestrial radio station those two claims cannot both be true — a 1KW transmitter does not get you a 300 km range, especially when there are mountains nearby — and the inability to properly verify which one is true and which one isn't is precisely the problem. The base notability criteria for radio stations, for the record, do require some kind of reliable sourcing to support them, and are not passed just because they're asserted to have been passed — there doesn't have to be a ton of sourcing before we can deem a radio station notable, but there does have to be more than none. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 5 December 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FM 96 Sargodha Pakistan[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BCAST. Störm (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- It seems to exists. The problem is the article should be named by its callsign and I can't find out what that is.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Advancement of Science and Technology[edit]

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

No coverage for this org. Fails WP:NORG. Alternatively, redirect to FAST-NU. Störm (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NORG. Lack of vndendepent secondary sources on the subject. Comatmebro (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 5 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAVIOUR (robot)[edit]

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

No real coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well I found that and was hopeful at first, but it seems to be a different robot entirely. The naming makes it virtually impossible to say for certain, but I've got nada. GMG ^talk 16:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - You've got some other SAVIOUR link, that's not it. I was a member of the team (it seems an era ago), but here are some organizational pages that list the original SAVIOUR from GIKI as a team: NIST document and RoboCup 2009 site. Don't know if it counts for much, but here's a YouTube video from then, too. Most of the original links references in the articles are dead by now, but it's an actual project that existed, and doesn't hurt to keep the article there. 08:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC+5), Superphysics (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry to be harsh Superphysics, but both the sources you link to are pretty much the definition of routine passing mention, and don't really contribute anything at all to a claim of notability, which requires in-depth independent coverage. The two sources currently in the article are themselves not independent, and are broken links besides. The problem is that most of the substantive content in the article that would make it into an actual encyclopedia entry simply can't be sourced to anything at all currently, which is really at the heart of Wikipedia's standards for notability. GMG ^talk 14:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources do not demonstrate notability. Didn't find anything supporting notability in my own search either. ~Kvng (talk) 04:40, 11 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God Loves, Man Kills (album)[edit]

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

Fails all of the criteria for albums. More specifically, it has not been the subject of multiple reliable sources, made an appearance on a national music chart, or won a major award. All of this goes in hand with the fact that the subject fails WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for albums.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 7 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akterul Alam Tinu[edit]

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

Two of the cited sources merely mention him as the director of two unreleased films. The other three sources only repeat the same brief quote from him. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG and the other stuff the nominator mentioned. The films he were involved him are not notable and has insufficient sources. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - Mar11 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aminul Islam (poet)[edit]

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

Per WP:AUTHOR. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a common name, which complicates searches, but I found a couple more sources: [48] [49], which together with the one already cited seem to satisfy WP:GNG, although maybe not WP:AUTHOR. If editors fluent in Bengali feel these are promotional or aren't significant coverage, and can't find other sources, I could be persuaded to change my recommendation. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See WP:VAGUEWAVE and see more sources discussing work of renowned Author of over two decades here and this. Also note this author primarily write in Bengali language, this surely means there are non English sources since even those from English shows meeting WP:GNG. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:37, 5 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Futrell[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sources in the article are his own site and own listing published by a society of composers. No independent sourcing, and searches turned up nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tyler Futrell is a member of the Norwegian Composer Association, (similar to Britain's Royal Philharmonic Society), celebrating its centenary this year. That in itself is notable. To delete this composer we may as well delete every entry in the Norwegian contemporary classical composers category. Norway might not like that . Mark^Dask 20:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure that membership in that organization makes one notable. Seems more like a union than the RPS. Onel5969 ^{TT me}01:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First two sentences of the RPS History section would suggest an identical genesis to the Norwegian Composer Association, and aint union/society fruit from the same tree? Mark^Dask 01:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, unions and societies are definitely not from the same tree. Perhaps someday in the future, if they become selective, the NCA might be grounds for notability, but right now it appears to be simply something that anyone can join. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly true in this case, given Futrell is Californian. Mark^Dask02:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said - anyone considering deleting Futrell as "not Notable" should take the time to hear this, (National Library of Norway ref added). Mark^Dask 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) 01:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His Papua Lingua is a beautiful composition, but doing some searching unfortunately does not reveal sources that would make him pass WP:BASIC, nor does this young composer yet meet the subject specific guideline WP:COMPOSER. Sam Sailor 19:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of sufficient reliable source coverage to establish notability under general notability guidelines, and it doesn't look like he meets notability for composers either, unless some of his compositions can be shown to be notable in their own right.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:04, 7 December 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 Disney XD TV channels. Not a hoax, but either way it doesn't really pass WP:GNG. ansh 666 05:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD (Europe, Middle East and Africa)[edit]

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

Non notable TV channel, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note the prev AFD closed today as No Consensus - I had no idea the article was even nominated, Anyway pinging Spshu who nominated the prev one. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax thus fails GNG, there was never an EMEA channel for Fox Kids, Jetix or Disney. Previous, AfD arguments for keeping said hoax was original false research using sources that indicate a Central & Eastern European (CEE) channel that expanded to Turkey then Turkish speaking countries in Asia amounted to a Pan-European (????) channel then split into CEE and Turkey and Middle East channels plus the existence of a South Africa channel must mean the channel function for all or most European nations. But there were the UK, Scandinavia, Italy, France, Spain channels per 2008 Annual Report which shows no Europe, Middle East and Africa channel. Bizarrely enough the Fox Kids/Jetix CEE channel is also apparently the root source for Disney Channel (Europe), when Jetix CEE (although listing as Romania, Moldova, Russia, Turkey, Bulgaria and launched in February 1999 instead of April 1999 - no channel is listed as launching in February) was split at change over to Disney Channel Bulgaria, Disney Channel Romania based on the MAVISE database run by European Audiovisual Observatory under contract with the European Commission. Spshu (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxes don't fail GNG as such, they fail WP:V, which is more serious. We have plenty of information on Disney Europe without having to worry too much about the mostly irrelevant intricacies of their corporate structure, but the point is this channel was planned, scrapped before anything happened and never launched. It is a fair assessment to say it never existed. I suppose this is a bit complicated for most people to bother with, it didn't get any interest last AfD. Dysklyver 17:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't believe that user Spshu is lying about the aforementioned AfD. Either that, or the user misunderstood the whole point of the previous AfD. First of all, I stated my points using sources from the original Fox Kids archives, such as the Fox Kids Europe Annual Review and Financial Statements 2003, the Fox Kids Operating and Financial Review 2000 and finally the Fox Kids Annual Report from 2001. As I claimed before, chronologically the Central and Eastern European channel was launched in April 1999 (noted on the Annual Review of 2000 and 2003 and even the Jetix 2008 Annual Report at page 16). The CEE channel was later expanded to Turkey in May 2000 available first on Digiturk and then on Turkish Telecom on July of that same year (noted on the 2000 and 2003 Report, the latter one stating the covering of that expansion to other Turkish-speaking countries including Azerbaidjan and Kazakhstan). By this point, it could no longer be called a Central and Eastern European channel, but a pan-European one, since its availability spanned Russia, the CIS members States, the Balkan countries and Turkey by 2000. In November 2000, the Fox Kids 2000 and 2003 Anual Reports stated the network launched a new channel service for the Middle East for Arab countries. Now, the Jetix 2008 Anual Report (as well as the 2006 Annual Report and the 2007 Annual Report at page 17) mentions the Turkish and the ME operations to had begun in April 2000 as a one and solely feed. By now, the channel has turned from a CEE feed, then a Pan-Euro feed, and finally a MENA feed, since its coverage includes most of Eastern Europe, CIS States, Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa. The only explanation why the Turkish/ME section is not listed separated into two different operational feeds on the Jetix 2008 report is this: the MENA feed was split into two channels, one focusing on the Eastern European/CIS operations, and another one focusing on Turkey and the Middle East, which had to occur in March 2004, prior to the Jetix rebrand when the channel was still named as Fox Kids. Before the rebrand to Disney XD, as Disney was rebranding some CEE-based channels to Disney Channel to make the first entrance of the Disney brand into those territories instead of relaunching them as Disney XD, the Jetix MENA feed entered in ex-Yugoslav countries replacing the CEE feed, which was going to rebrand itself as Disney Channel, considering those ex-Yugoslav nations already received the EMEA feed of the Disney Channel (available also in Poland and Turkey at the time). After the rebrand, Disney XD MENA (consisting by now of Turkey, ex-Yugo countries, the Middle East and North Africa) enters the African TV market through an agreement between the Disney and South African-based satellite TV provider DStv, available throughout Subsaharian Africa ([50] [51] [52]).

So, @Spshu: can you please tell me how can the Fox Kids reports be original false research? --Bankster (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explained above. You could not follow the argument at the previous AfD and twisting things I said. I had to continually correct you. You have not shown any sources to support the existence of an EMEA channel. The Jetix Reports show a CEE (which temporarily covered Turkey) and Turkey/ME.

GhanaWeb: "'Since its global launch in 2009 Disney XD has been a phenomenal success. Over the past 20 months, we have launched 14 Disney XD channels across EMEA and we are proud to be launching Disney XD today in Africa.' Maciej Bral, Vice President Disney Channels CEE and Emerging Markets commented..." See not a single EMEA channel but 14 DXD channels!!
TheNet - no indication this was any particular channel much less EMEA.
Bizcommunity.com: "Disney XD was globally launched in 2009 and, over the last 20 months, it has managed to launch 14 Disney XD channels across Europe, Middle East and Africa, according to Maciej Bral, Disney Channels VP and MD for emerging markets." - again 14 Disney XD channels in the EMEA. Spshu (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: you keep continuing missing the point. As in the previous AfD, I didn't say the CEE/EMEA feed was launched first, I stated the EMEA feed was actually launched. You keep ignoring the fact that while countries such France, the UK, Spain and Germany were getting their own localised channels, the Central and Eastern European feed was expanding itself to other countries outside of its original geographical coverage. Unlike other channels such as Cartoon Network, Fox Kids localised feeds were launched at par with the regional ones. I've shown you the sources and you kept ignoring them, given the fact that these make sense and make a chronology for the channel to gain such name. The three African references I've cited clearly mentions the launch of the channel in Africa, not the launch of an African feed which isn't even insinuated. One of the 14 channels being present in EMEA (which in fact there are only nine) is the proper EMEA feed, covering (as I mentioned before) the Adriatic nations, Turkey, the Middle East and Africa. I still have to explain the whole issue but you either misunderstand it or don't want to listen. --Bankster (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue. At no point do your sources have an EMEA channel. You are synthesizing it from primary sources. With an EMEA channel version you are saying that Fox/Jetix/Disney Europe has only one channel or individual country channels are the exception not the rule.

2000 report: "... on the back of new channel launches in Italy and Turkey, a full year of technical costs for our Central & Eastern European service which launched in April 1999..." new channel in Turkey "...The launch of our pay-TV channel in Germany in October 2000 will further enhance this expansion and will complete the Pan-European roll-out of our channel platform, covering all major markets." List of channels from Subscriber Growth by Channel: "Italy, Spain, Poland, Nordi Region, France, Central Europe, Uk & Ireland, Netherlands" No European, Middle East & Africa channel, not even an European channel.
2001 Report: "... adding a Hungarian channel ... extended with a Czech language feed ..." "... a new channel service for the Middle East (excluding Israel) ... includes Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen."
"... with Middle East Communication Holdings B.V. ... we launched a fully localised channel for Israel" A Middle East channel but not even a CEE&ME channel and still no European, Middle East & Africa channel, not even an European channel.
2003 Report: June 2001: "Fox Kids becomes the most widely distributed children's channel in Europe and the Middle East, reaching 24.9 million households and broadcasting in 54 countries via 11 channel feeds in 16 languages" October 2001: "Channel launch in Greece" 2002 September: "Fox Kids Europe reaches 32.3 million households. Now broadcasting in 56 countries in 17 languages via 12 channel feeds" 2003 September "Fox Kids Europe now reaches 34.8 million households in 57 countries in 17 languages via 12 channel feeds" Again no indication of 1 channel serving the bulk of Europe, Middle East and Africa.
2006 Report: "Jetix reach....Channel feed UK; Central & Eastern Europe, Netherlands, Italy, France, Poland, Scandinavia, Spain; Hungary‚ Czech Republic and Slovakia, Germany, Turkey & Middle East, Israel, Greece" Still no EMEA channel.
2007 Annual Report at page 17: "Our broadcast channels": "UK, Central and Eastern Europe, Netherlands, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Scandinavia; Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia; Turkey and Middle East, Germany, Israel, Greece" Still no EMEA channel.
2008 Annual Report: "Our broadcast channels": "Central and Eastern Europe, UK, Netherlands, France, Poland, Italy; Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia; Scandinavia, Spain, Germany, Turkey and Middle East, Israel, Greece" Still no EMEA channel.
The list of Disney XD channels in Europe at MAVISE doesn't not list an EMEA channel

There is no current Disney XD EMEA channels. Onus is now completely on you, @Bankster:, and has been on you. Spshu (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're still missing points. I've stated several times that the Fox Kids network was launching localised channels at par with the regional feeds in Europe; an example of that is the UK channel which was launched in 1996. When am I claiming either the EMEA channel was launched first or that it covered most of Europe? Even that source doesn't mention a new channel in Turkey as you say, you might want to check that out.

Fox Kids 2000 report: Our Central & Eastern European channel service was extended successfully to Turkey in May 2000 on Digiturk, Turkey's first digital satellite platform, and shortly after on Turkish Telecom's cable system, in July 2000. This channel service has subsequently been extended to cover other Turkish speaking countries including Azerbaidjan and Kazakhstan. Also in May 2000, we completed the geographical coverage of our Nordic service and now cover Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. The same 2000 report contrasts the CEE feed expansion to Turkey and the launch of the Nordic Fox Kids channel. It does not mention the expansion to Africa yet, because that happened in May 2011 when the channel was already rebranded as Disney XD, twelve years later. By 2000, as you noted above, the CEE/Pan-Euro channel expanded to the Middle East and North Africa. The chronology is there, but you're reluctant to accept it.
Fox Kids 2001 report: the Jetix 2006, 2007 and 2008 reports (all embedded in my first keep argument) lists Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia operations as separate ones, not linked to the CEE feed, already expanding its coverage to Turkey and the MENA region. Again, you're proving my point about the Turkish and Middle Eastern operations being linked together as a sole feed since there isn't any "Middle Eastern" Fox Kids/Jetix/Disney XD channel per se, also stated on the Jetix reports. Israel had an independent Fox Kids feed launched in 2001 as part of that deal with Middle East Communication Holdings, later rebranded in 2005 as Jetix and then turned into an independent Disney Channel.

@Spshu: you're reluctant to comprehend this matter. You mentioned a made out cite from a reference which states a different stand on you, you're still unable to understand that the EMEA channel was launched after the inauguration of the UK feed and served Eastern Europe, Turkey the Middle East and North Africa in a gradual way and not all of a sudden, that the channel entered to the Sub-Saharan African market just 6 years ago already rebranded as Disney XD via satellite TV provider DStv and still insisting on it. --Bankster (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do comprehend this matter and I prove none of your points. I revamped/rewrote the DXD, the list of DXD, Disney Channel Worldwide, Jetix articles. I found no EMEA channel in my research. There has been no source that indicates a continual EMEA channel from Fox Kids to Jetix to DXD to present day not even starting as CEE. Turkey & Middle East and CEE were recognized as separate channels in the later annual reports (2007, 2008). Some of the annual reports are unclear in some spots it says Turkey channel and some places CEE feed covering Turkey. Just the CEE article would say it was extend to Turkey then served by its own channel. Turkey & ME article would say that Turkey was served by CEE before getting its own channel. That is the most you might get from your sources. Since there is no direct mention of an EMEA channel, you are WP:SYNTHESIS its existence. Spshu (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, maybe it does exist, maybe its a hoax. However lets assume its real and passes WP:V, fine, then we consider WP:GNG, well its not going to pass GNG with the existing sources, that's a given, but imagine somehow more were found, and it passed GNG, then we have WP:CORPDEPTH, it is almost impossible in my view that it would pass CORPDEPTH, I do not think the sources are there, so it would still be deleted. Period. In short, save time and go make a userspace draft where you can add bits until it will pass the requisite tests. Dysklyver 00:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Disney XD TV channels I believe all of Bankster's sources, but at the end of the day this is basically the usual 'carries most of XD's programs without local deviation outside dubbing/subtitling' feed with the usual joke 'sourcing' to fanblogs and the company's .com.tr/schedule site (and even to the Jetix site; why are we sourcing to their equivalent of SEC forward looking statements? It's not 2002 any longer). Redirects are cheap; as is though, this article is dire. Nate • (chatter) 04:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(changed threading of next response to above my comment, no refactoring done; Spshu, you've been here long enough to know how threading works. Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Just to note I've moved the "This debate has been included" notices down, I've removed "Comment" from Spshus reply and last but not least I've changed the indents so both Spshu and Bankster are now replying to each other (and it makes more sense) ([53][54]) - I don't usually like to edit anyones comments but everything on here was so mishmashed so had to do something, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Spshu (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And be brief. For the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Disney XD TV channels, after all it is just a localized feed of Disney XD.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 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. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of caves of Maryland[edit]

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

This article has had a refimprove tag since 2010 and has not been acted on. The negligible amount of content that is cited does not directly apply to the article content. A lot of the editing is original research as seen in the edit summaries and the quality of content added. Additionally, because the article subject is about a specific book stating it's the "principal source for information", referencing that book would be effectively citing a primary source repeatedly which is against Wikipedia's policies. This could lead to plagiarism/copyright infringement if it could be discerned what is material from the book (if any) and what is original research on this article. A discussion about this has been started on the talk page but has been ignored by those who edit the article's content. For these reasons, the article has been nominated for deletion, as deleting uncited material would leave almost nothing left in the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I'm going to add my latest discussion from the article's talk page, with some minor edits to it.

What an edit would look like if all uncited material were removed

Okay editors, I went through and did a preliminary edit and I'm posting my results here, so you can see what it would look like beforehand. But first, I'll share with you my thoughts on the Notes section of this article. Keep in mind that "Notes" aren't actually references/citations. They're supposed to act as additional commentary that would otherwise distract from the narrative or the narrative's cadence, but is important to the article's content. It appears the notes in this article are behaving like references, but are marked up as notes erroneously. These notes should be converted.

Note #1 should be converted to a ref. The following sentence suggests that the book Caves of Maryland is the "principal source of information" about this article, and the first sentence in this article suggests the reference book is the subject of the article in no small part. Therefore, I'd treat the book Caves of Maryland as a primary source because it's the principal source; it is likely to be referenced a lot. In fact, the article goes on to say it will use the book as an "outline" further declaring its intention to copy it, or behave like the book. The book can still be referenced, but primary sources are usually only cited to prove the existence of something or to prove information about it's publication, such as publishing information (date, author, press, etc). Citing this book multiple times is not what this article wants to be doing. At the very least (and probably at the very most too), this book can be referenced after the very first sentence.

Note #2 is a dead link and the bot that takes care of dead links either hasn't gotten to it yet, or perhaps no substitute exists. Not sure how those bots work exactly. But it doesn't really matter, because the note appears to be defining what a cave is, which is not necessary for this article, nor is it the focus of this article. You could direct someone to the cave article for that. Therefore it can be entirely deleted since the adjacent content is also uncited.

Note #3 is about the Maryland Geological Survey, but appears to be noting the specificity of Hagerstown Valley having well-established waterways, which the link does not specifically say. Nor does the website say anything about caves or any specific cave as far as I can see. So the note does not support the sentence, nor does the sentence refer to the note. Therefore it is entirely deleted. No harm really done, since this article is about caves and not about underlying waterways.

Note #4 is also a dead link. If no one can find a replacement, everything it's noting is tentatively deleted. It appears the note was referencing "ridge-lines" of the Catoctin area, which arguably adds nothing to the dialogue of the article, and certainly not after the related uncited material is deleted.

Note #5 appears to be valid supporting material. Even though the direct link has zero information supporting the written content, the search engine on that site supports the claim that John Friend Cave and Crabtree Cave are protected by the Nature Conservancy. If this note were converted to a reference and the url links made more direct, those two caves would remain a part of the article.

Note #6 " A (sic) History of Western Maryland [with Illustrations]" is noted for Marker Cave. Again, another note that was probably intended as a reference. I assume it's supporting the fact that Marker Cave was the focus of an archaeological investigation that revealed the remains of Native Americans. The book itself can be found here and is searchable. A search in the document for "Marker" reveals no mention of a cave by that name and therefore the note, if it were to be converted, does not support the claim. A search for "bodies", "mummy", "mummies", "skeleton", and "remains" also did not come up with anything close to supporting the claim about Marker Cave. Everything in this section should be deleted.

All right, so what would the article look like after my edits? Here is the remaining content:

List of caves of Maryland

List of caves of Maryland is based on the book The Caves of Maryland by William E. Davies.[1] It's predecessor was a series of reports by Martin Muma in the mid-1940s, working under the Maryland Geological Survey. After the release of these articles, a more comprehensive study was begun in 1946 by Davies and The Caves of Maryland was released in 1950. Since its publication, this reference work has remained the principal source for information about Maryland caves, and has served as an outline for the work to follow.

List of caves:

Crabtree - A cave protected by the The Nature Conservancy[2]
Crystal Grottoes - Maryland's only show-cave, developed in the Tomstown Dolomite at 420 feet (130 m) elevation.
Cumberland Bone Cave - A fossil-filled cave along the western slope of Wills Mountain on the outskirts of Cumberland, Maryland near Corriganville in Allegany County, Maryland.
John Friend - A cave protected by the Nature Conservancy[2]

And that's it. Not much of a list, and hardly worth contributing to another article. And hardly worth an article about a List of Caves of Maryland. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly moot, because the "Caves of Maryland" source is found to be available for free on-line (see below). And I will reply in detail to the original posting of this comment at Talk:List of caves of Maryland. --Doncram (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep and improve- Unless someone does a complete rewrite of this article, its needs to go. It appears that all the information in this article was plagiarized from another source (perhaps the book mentioned at the beginning of the article) See comments below--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref improvement tag has been in place since 2010 with no action taken. I don't think anyone wants to rewrite the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like a lift and drop from elsewhere. Probable copyvio. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly notable topic and no one voting so far has accessed the principal source. There is no assertion that any information in the article is controversial so there is no reason to delete any caves mentioned. There is no evidence presented of copyvio or plagiarism or anything like that; it is a decent article which lists caves in the state grouped by county. Note that it is effectively split out of List of caves in the United States, so "Delete" would not be an appropriate decision of this AFD; at worst it could be redirected or merged to List of caves in the United States#Maryland. --Doncram (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, Have you read the article? Your comments seem to suggest not. A lot of content looks like original research which is not allowed. None of it is cited despite a 10 year tag being in place. You can't prove if it's plagiarism or copyvio because nothing is cited- hinting at original research for the mass bulk of it! You also seem to have glossed over the fact that the book itself would be the primary source and citing it a hundred times would be a violation of Wikipedia policies. As for adding to the List of U.S. Caves - not much can be added. That list does not get descriptions. The most you could do is add redlinks with citations, except for Cumberland Bone Cave, which I just added. I disagree that a merge to a list article with an established format at odds with this contested article is what needs to occur. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint boils down to the fact you should want to tag the article with {{no footnotes}}, which calls for inline citations. I just revised the lede of the article and added that tag for you.

Otherwise:

Note that many of the items could be valid for separate articles in Wikipedia. Having a list-article which covers them is better than creating separate articles for each one. The coverage of each is better in a list-article which provides overall context. Having the list-article avoids cycle of article creation and deletion and re-creation of each separate article; the list-article coverage provides a good target for merger/redirect of separate articles. Note that all of these are geological features, supporting their individual validity.
The article seems to have been written by spelunker(s) interested in the topic of caves in Maryland. It appears to be comprehensive, covering all or nearly all known caves which meet the definition for a cave which is clearly stated in the article. This is good.
A typical example item is :
Cumberland Quarry - Wills Creek Formation at 720 feet (220 m) elevation. On the south side of Wills Creek, opposite Valley Street in Cumberland. There are two crawlways here in a tightly folded section of the Wills Creek Formation, on the east face of an old quarry.

This is FINE. It would be improved by having an inline citation, but there is no contention suggested by the deletion nominator that this cave does not exist. I think it is fine to reflect the spelunker's interest in "two crawlways".

Another example, also with no contended information is:

Devil's Den - located south of Flintstone on the farm once owned by an H. Jackson. The entrance is on a wooded hillside and can be found by following the strike of the rocks northeast from a spring adjacent the house. Local tradition holds that children have played here for many years, though no dates are known to occur in the cave. The entrance is at 1,030 feet (310 m) elevation and can be easily deduced by the following means: the cave represents a lesser-used drainway of Flintstone Creek, where it plunges below the surface behind the school until its resurgence at the Jackson spring where it joins the other half of Flintstone Creek as a tributary of the Murley Branch. The cave is part of an upper level located around 1,030 feet (310 m), directly above the subterranean branch of the Flintstone, both of which occur in a thin band of the Tonoloway Formation adjacent to the Wills Creek Shale and Keyser Limestone. The present owner, Donald Jackson, reports the rear portion of the cave to be collapsing. He said the cave is considered to be closed.

For this one, an inline citation would also be helpful. And the current tense should be avoided; whatever the "present" owner said should be explained as being of a given year or more precise date, otherwise it is not encyclopedic. I would not mind this entry being edited down, but I have no doubt that this "Devil's Den" is a cave in Maryland.

I completely disagree with the deletion nominators purported suggestion for an alternate text, which is basically a joke. That is the best he/she can write given their lack of knowledge and sources about the topic and their arbitrary decision to reject all information which is apparently from the "Caves of Maryland" source, which is apparently an excellent source on the topic. In Wikipedia, we benefit from various contributors having access to off-line sources and providing good material based on them. We don't need to delete anything that one editor doesn't believe because they have not the same background or access to information. For example, should we delete Wikipedia's coverage of Einstein's theory of general relativity, merely because you and I don't really grok it? --Doncram (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram Why are you ignoring the fact this is all basically original research? As an admin, you must be familiar with it as it's "one of three core content policies" of Wikipedia. A citation improvement need has been up for 7 years and no one has done anything, so per WP:OR it can be deleted since almost none of the content can be verified. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense; you have no basis to belief that there is any original research at all. It seems rather more likely that the list of caves is based on the apparently excellent source, "Caves of Maryland", which you have not obtained. You also would completely dismiss that source, because it is too directly on-topic and valid as a source, so much so that you wish to term it "primary" and therefore not allowed, which is incorrect reasoning. For one thing, see wp:PRIMARY (i think it is) about how primary sources can in fact be used with appropriate care. I strongly believe that the "Caves of Maryland" is a perfectly valid source for a list of caves in Maryland. From what is reported in this Wikipedia article, it is a well-produced result of multiple studies, revisions, involvement of many parties; there is no reason to dismiss this as if it is merely one spelunker's personal and creative diary.

Just to share: I happen to work mostly on articles about historic sites listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The vast majority of the 63,728 NRHP articles in Wikipedia are each mostly based on the available NRHP nomination document for each site. I think you would want to delete them all because you would claim those are all invalid sources. Well, the consensus of Wikipedians is against that, because the documents are held to be well-constructed, reviewed works that come out of an editorial process better than Wikipedia's own process. Each document does include some primary information about its site, including reporting on the then-current condition of the property in the nominator's observation, but they also reflect expertise of the nominator and of editors/reviewers, and they also utilize and reference other sources, so they include secondary or tertiary type information. You have zero idea, apparently, of the quality of "Caves of Maryland" source and the process by which it was generated in its initial 1950 form and later updates, or you dismiss what is available about it (and is included in the article) being apparently of quite good quality.

I will acknowledge one thing for you: it is conceivable that language in the Wikipedia article hews too close to the "Caves of Maryland" source. On NRHP articles, I and other editors occasionally find that a new contributor has inappropriately copied from the NRHP nomination document. For example, the other day I removed a lot of text from one NRHP article because I compared the NRHP document to the Wikipedia article and found there to be inappropriate overlap. However, the vast majority of NRHP articles are fine, and pass review when the main source document is checked. Often new editors write in different style, and just need to be coached to use inline citations to make the work better. If/when you do obtain the "Caves of Maryland" source and find specific problems, then it would be appropriate to edit down any problematic overlap. But based on my experience with multiple new editors of NRHP articles over many years, my best guess here is that the material is fine (but could be improved with editing as I suggest on two examples above).

This AFD raises issues which are appropriate for the article's Talk page (and which have been raised there and have obtained some discussion, including by editors User:Thincat and User:DMACKS). I see no basis for deletion as proposed. --Doncram (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram Just one quick comment. As a "spelunker" I do have basis, and a lot of this reads like original research based on the edit summaries and the content itself and my familiarity with cave exploration (trip reports) reports. But the point remains, a citation tag has been in place for 7 years and no one is willing to cite the information to prove it's not original research, therefore it can be deleted.

More response, I fully understand how primary sources work. I understand you can use them sparingly, and usually to prove something about the source itself such as publishing information or to merely prove something exists. But repeatedly using a primary source can verge on, or become, plagiarism. This article has made no qualms, that the book is the direct source of information, and the focus of, for this article. The editors in the lede have even admitted the book "has served as an outline for the work to follow" which you blatantly omitted in your recent edit of the article, but is still proof of the intent of this page regardless of your intent to obfuscate it. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "refimprove" tag from 7 years ago, so that is no longer a problem. I added "no footnotes" tag dated 2017 which calls for more specific inline citations.
Okay, I will take your word that much of the material sounds like what spelunkers term "trip reports". It appears to me that the article is based largely on the "Caves of Maryland" source, which indeed could be a nice compendium of spelunkers' "trip reports". It may indeed be a very well-verified, quadruple-checked, well-written such compendium, i.e. an excellent source to use in this article.
I hear your point that "repeatedly using a primary source can verge on, or become, plagiarism" and I basically don't agree that applies. I doubt that the list itself is copyrightable. The source "Caves of Maryland" indubitably lists numerous caves. Each cave can be mentioned in this list-article, with an inline citation for each one. Of course I do not have the source and I don't truly know whether or not the introductory material in the article follows too closely. But for an NRHP article there can be many many inline citations to just one NRHP nomination document, with no problem of plagiarism of wording or of content/organization. It depends: you have to see the damn source, which you confess you have not consulted.
You seem to contradict yourself: you want to dismiss all material as original research (i.e. made up by the original editor) and you want to dismiss it as entirely copied from one source (which by all appearances appears to be a truly excellent resource on the topic). Make up your mind.
Please note wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP applies. Just because you don't like the article, doesn't mean it deserves deletion. In fact, it is incredibly obvious that a list of caves in Maryland can be legitimately split out from the list of caves in the United States as a whole.
Your personal sense, stated at the Talk page, that the article "seems like original research" is in fact your personal speculation, i.e. pretty much it is your own original research, and is not basis for deletion of the article or any material in it. It seems silly to try to discuss anything much more without someone actually consulting the source. Tell you what: withdraw this AFD to avoid further waste of time. Figure out how to buy a copy of the book, or better buy two copies. Send me an email and I will give you my mailing address and I will reimburse you for the cost or pay for it myself in advance. But otherwise, if you have not consulted the main source, this AFD is really useless. --Doncram (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book is likely out of print, so that's a moot point. Perhaps you do bring up a good point about considering whether or not such an article should exist separate from the fact that the article is of poor quality. The article I believe falls under Wikipedia:Listcruft anyway and as an alternative could be merged with List of caves in the United States. Of course, only the most notable caves should be listed, every hole in the ground does not deserve a mention.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's available for $9.99 (not sure if this is 1950 version or 1971 version) or $35 (1971 version) and up, in 2 seconds looking at Amazon for used copies. I await the deletion nominator contacting me privately.
I don't think the article should be merged into the U.S.-wide one, because its list of specific caves is already very large and it also includes nice introductory setup about the geology of Maryland, etc., which is too long for the U.S.-wide list. It is fine for this to be split out on basis of size.
The article includes a nice one-sentence definition of what size caves count for the list-article, namely that the cave has to be big enough to hold a human. It is highly appropriate for editors of a list-article to discuss inclusion criteria at the Talk page of the article. Since "Caves of Maryland" adopts the stated definition, it is probably good for this list-article to use the same. It is not an arbitrary cutoff; it is the cutoff adopted by the premier source on the topic. If there is a different (larger size) cutoff used at the U.S. list-article, then the Maryland section there could just list the bigger Maryland caves which meet that cutoff, while using the smaller size cutoff in the separate Maryland article. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article two definitions of a cave are given 1. "All caves given in the 1976 republication of Caves of Maryland will be listed below by county" and 2."For purposes of this article, a cave is defined as any subterranean cavity large enough for a human to enter. This definition was adopted by the Caves of Maryland source and led its authors to include several shelter caves, fissures, and mines that in states with larger, more complex cave systems, might otherwise go unlisted." I don't think shelter caves and mines are worthy of inclusion here. According to the second definition I could dig a hole in my backyard and as long as a person could fit in it, I could include it in the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? If you did that and put it into the article then I would probably call that vandalism. You would not have any source documenting as a cave meeting the "Caves of Maryland" standard, though, so you wouldn't put it in, and it would not be an issue. I doubt there are unnatural examples like your hypothetical one, but is there a specific cave listed in the book and this article which you wish to object to, and call for revision of the current item inclusion standard? Please do bring it up at the Talk page for discussion.I think the two "definitions" are fine: yes we define the given standard, and we list all the examples covered in the available source. If there is a cave which doesn't meet both "definitions", then that can certainly be brought up. This hypothetical issue is not an issue for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resetting my response here Doncram. I had a bigger response, but your guys' edits buried it and I lost my edit.

You mentioned that you switched the tag to "no footnotes". Sure, fine. But that doesn't change this article's citation problem going on 7 years. Call it footnotes, call it references, the point is moot - almost nothing is cited.

You also mentioned "each cave can be mentioned in this list-article, with an inline citation for each one"... yeah, that's the point of my submission here. Each cave certainly could be mentioned, in fact, they just may be mentioned. But it looks like you finally hit the nail on the head here... there are no citations for any of the caves listed. Great recommendation Doncram, but it's been pointed out 7 years ago.

And lastly you suggest I contradict myself. Good point, I may just be contradicting myself in a manner of speaking, but as you can see it's easy to do. The article suggests it's following form of the book it intended (but failed) to reference these past years. What has happened in many cases, I suspect, is that original research was done. Certainly the intent was good when this article started but now we can't tell what is legitimate reference material and what is original research. My suggestion is to blow it up. Nary a thing can be transferred to an existing list. This article barely reads as a list and should be retitled, definitely reworked, and everything cited.

But again, the time to do all this was 7 years ago and not a single editor has lifted a finger. And no Doncram, I have no intention of buying a book for a one time use. Feel free though. I feel the editors who created this page should take up that mantle, they seem to be the experts.

As for Rusf10, I have no issue with what is and what isn't a cave, except maybe that Wikipedia already defines what a cave is at the Cave article. Consistency is important in my book. The only thing applicable here is that the article cave entries need citations. This article has pretty much nothing in that regard. Spot on assessment with the listcruft though, I made that same assessment on the article's talk page a month ago. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Caves of Maryland" document is available for free on-line, i find from browsing in the reference 3 in the article, the reference to MGS Online. Follow the link to PDF file from this Maryland Geological Survey webpage about its out-of-print but popular educational publication "Caves of Maryland". Corresponding to the example one-paragraph "Devil's Den" I quoted above, there is about a page and a half of text (on pages 39 and 40 of the document), and two figures. The current article's paragraph about it seems to be a decent summary; it does not appear to be a verbatim copy. All that is needed is an inline citation to the document, specifically referencing pages 39-40. There are different methods of implementing that page-specific citing in Wikipedia, including using the {{rp}} template.

There may well be other editing required, e.g. for the "Allegheny High School" cave, there is only very brief info available in the source, and the current Wikipedia article single sentence about it is reworded but not hugely different. When the source is about the same size as what you are trying to write, I find it is almost impossible to avoid close paraphrasing while still being accurate and not changing the meaning; I prefer to use an explicit quote rather than try to "summarize"; summarizing in your own words works when you are reducing down from a larger source.

So anyhow, there is editing to do in the List of caves of Maryland article, but it does appear to be improvable using the truly excellent source from the Maryland Geological Society. This AFD should be quickly closed as "Keep", and discussion moved to the Talk page of the article. --Doncram (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never doubted this article is improvable as noted by my October comments on the article's discussion page. I have had doubts about whether anyone wanted to improve this article. Nothing has changed Doncram. The "no footnotes" tag still exists and the entire article needs citing, or large chunks are going to be deleted. Are you offering to do the legwork?

Also, looking at one of the entries and comparing it to the source - I-68 Caves is not mentioned anywhere in your source. It appears to be entirely original research just as I suspected. I went through and did a rough look at the remaining caves are in the source, and it looks like almost the entire county of Garrett is original research. A few of the other counties have a couple unsourceable entries as well. I'd guess 70% of the article could be cited by this once source, which suggests the original writeup for this cave was correct that is was essentially copying this source as nearly as it could, making it the primary source, by definition and by straight comparison. This article has to be very careful not to plagiarize. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we'll keep it. This makes most of it verifiable and article can be improved provided someone wants to commit to a significant cleanup. However, there still has to be a better standard for which caves to include. That book lists 148 caves, not all of them can possibly be notable enough for wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to Doncram's excellent detective work the article can be referenced adequately and improved. Any plagiarism or copyright issues (if the are any) can be resolved. Thincat (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Doncram, don't need to rehash the voluminous discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 9 December 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IndonesiaMUN[edit]

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

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to expand a bit on my (very short) vote: this is an organization that runs a Model UN conference in Indonesia. The article only describes the 2010 event, and only has a single primary reference. The conference appears to have occurred every year since 2010, but I see no coverage that suggests it is notable. As a high-school event, I presume it to not be notable unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. Trivial mentions like [55] are not enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 5 December 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ermal Mamaqi[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Won a notable Albanian competition so meets WP:MUSICBIO. I didn't check the ref, but the Albanian and German articles do have additional sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep won a notable competition Atlantic306 (talk) 17:45, 12 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Sunawala[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The arguments for "Keep" in the last AfD discussion point to sources that are apparently no longer available. I see nothing besides passing mentions in articles about other entertainers or projects. No significant coverage appears available. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. -Mar11 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Ventric (talk) 21:08, 8 December 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 delete rationales are weak and ample evidence has been provided that this article meets MUSICBIO. The strongest policy-based arguments in this discussion are for a keep outcome, and as such in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, I have overturned the original no consensus close, and am closing it as a full keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SEQU3L[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG wholesomely. Nearly G11-able promo-spam. Rubbish promotional-sourcing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For 4 reasons: 1– Passes WP:MUSICBIO #4, Has received coverage from different independent sources (IndiaTimes, Pune Mirror, etc) after performing at largest music festival in Asian continent. The festival itself was ranked by CNN as one of the top 10 world festivals. Source: [56], and more already in the article. 2– Passes #9, He worn award at the festival. 3–Passes #1; see [57], [58] and this. 4–Passes #8, His work was featured in radio shows of (notable artists themselves), not once, not twice, but many times. See SEQU3L#Career section for evidence. The sum of all these verifiable evidence and the content of the article itself are enough to earn any musician Wikipedia page, some pages are kept because of meeting single criterion. Also see the last AfD and note why it closed as keep. None of the "delete" vote gave any policy/guidline-based rationale or attempt to fault evidence presented and the same thing here again. WP:BEFORE is very important step before AfDing, because saying something "fails GNG" is one of the simplest task on earth, but proving so, is not. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSICBIO and has reliable sources coverage as shown above Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maidan Daily[edit]

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

Search turns up nothing. This is one of many dummy publications in Pakistan. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, had a daily circulation of 23,000 in 2004 ([59], p. 705). Plenty of coverage on the attacks against the publication. --Soman (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This only verifies. We need proper source which discusses the subject not directory which lists whole world newspapers. Störm (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 02:59, 5 December 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 DNA Productions. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Studio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There is nothing that satisfies WP:GNG and everything available falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. Does not appear to be in business any longer and the references I do find are simply directory listings. CNMall41 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to DNA Productions. 165.91.13.63 (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How are these related to each other? I don't see anything other than they share a similar name. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 02:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DNA Productions as I've seen at least four news articles referring to DNA Productions as DNA Studio or similar (e.g. here and here). Redirects are to aid searching as well as providing sub-topics and misspellings, by the way. Nothing can I find at Google News Archive and my original Google News search was mainly talking about DNA Productions. My second gnews search to narrow it down proved to find no substantial coverage. The four articles in the last search were:

MediaPost's Something Massive Becomes Even More So, Acquires Circ.us, Gets Into 'Post-PC' Act has 24 words at the most in the fourth paragraph, thus failing to account for significant coverage.
PR Web's DEI Worldwide Names Gunther Sonnenfeld as Vice President of Digital and Social Media is noted as a press release, thus failing to account for significant coverage.
TVBlog.it's Palinsesti Mediaset autunno 2017, conferenza stampa: tutte le dichiarazioni] is from a blog, thus failing to meet our standards for reliable sources.
The Atlantic's Designing a Better Public Toilet has not a mention and I don't know why it came up.

Finally, a Google Books search also confuses the two, thus strengthening my stance to redirect. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:07, 5 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trade diversion[edit]

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

This article has never, as far as I can see, had any reliable independent sources. Actually it only ever seems to have had one reference that even attempted to be a proper source, and that turned out to be on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 21 November (UTC)

Delete: There could be more flaws pointed out in this article but really the fact that there were no sources is enough to be deleted. Wikipedia needs to be strict with this kind of thing to maintain credibility.Grapefruit17 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.", also WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, this is definitely an economic concept that is covered in/by numerous publications/organisations, see Preferential Trade Agreements, Trade Creation and Trade Diversion, "The terms trade creation and trade diversion are closely associated with Chicago School economist Jacob Viner (The Customs Union Issue, 1950)." from Trade Creation, Trade Diversion and Trade Creation, Migration, Spillovers,and Trade Diversion: The Impact of Internationalization on Stock Market Liquidity, Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the Canada - United States Free Trade Agreement etc, etc, etc. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable economic term, I've added some references. There is also trade creation as noted by Coolabahapple. However, I've tagged this to be merged into this article - as it makes sense to explain the related concepts in one place.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources given by Coolabahapple and in the article show that the term is notable. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:54, 9 December 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) 19:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TalentPool[edit]

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

inadequate evidence for notability. The " Guardian Small Business Network." is not the Guardian. The Real Business "article" is a promotional interview where the co-founders simply say why they think their ideas are so important, and the rest are trivial notices, including two very minor awards--and one not even an award, but shortlisted. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Corporate puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - concur with nominator, sources are not independent of subject, non-notable company 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "TalentPool" indeed. Even from the name you can infer a lot about this non notable website using Wikipedia to promote their business and cause. No sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG neither WP:NWEB. Both in the article and from search. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ROUTINE does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Other sources are not WP:RELIABLE. ~Kvng (talk) 04:22, 11 December 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. Consensus is this lacks sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Ecosystem[edit]

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

This appears to be just another crypto currency articles. The sourcing gives no evidence of notability. Much seems to be own web-site and blogs , press releases and linkedin. Nothing here hints at notability. Fails WP:GNG and appears to be an advertising puff piece Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ARK SHOULD BE LISTED ON WIKIPEDIA FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE:

- The article is TOTALLY UNBIASED. The technological discussion and history are factual and (almost) entirely sourced (and certainly accurate). - At this point Ark is a top 30 cryptocurrency, making it a $350 million company. - It has official legal residence in France. - Its founders have worked for the EU and countless multinationals. - The company is developing unique technology. - At this point several dozen cryptocurrencies are listed on Wikipedia, including ones around the same height as Ark and even ones MUCH lower: Lisk, IOTA, Stratis, Waves and even Dogecoin, Vertcoin, Namecoin, Gridcoin, etc. So why should Ark be removed when these are untouched?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies

- The complainer, Velella, earlier wholesale removed portions of the article I had written, including ones as unbiased as possible. - Who says competitors and investors aren't unbiased and are trying to get Ark's page removed? - There's no rule on Wikipedia that says only top 10 or top 20 coins can be listed. - As long as the info is factual, certainly the listing of top 50 coins shouldn't be an issue. - The mainstream media shouldn't be a be all, end all criteria for legitimate young/start up projects.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FixXxer1865 (talk • contribs) — FixXxer1865 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am not the complainer, I am simply an editor who cannot see notability in the article or find it in searches about the article's subject. I did indeed remove a swathe of unsourced content which made it look even more promotional and less worth saving. I was attempting to salvage something of note. However, it was not to be. Nothing added since has provided any significant evidence of notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: The facts I mention speak for themselves and address your complaints - and then some. If you delete Ark, also delete 80% of the coins listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies

Where do you draw the line? Top 100? Top 50? Top 10? IOTA is in the top 10 now I assume. Hardly ever an article written about - if ever - and pretty questionable leadership. Still on Wikipedia.

A registered (in France no less instead of Switzerland or an off-shore) $350 million start-up company with very legitimate leadership and about which tens of thousands of people are looking for information deserves to be on Wikipedia, certainly while it is getting worth more and more and more. If it crashes and burns, or looks inactive, or has shady characters involved, it is an entirely different matter. Then it can always be deleted.

Also added all possible competition as far as they are listed on Wikipedia, so people can compare features. I don't work for Ark. And I got just as much interest in the competition - at various times. I'm a hobbyist who enjoys studying cryptos.

You're trying to win an argument purely for the sake of winning. Not on consistency or reason.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FixXxer1865 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this cryptocurrency is so big, it shouldn´t be hard to provide some reliable sources. FixXxer1865, could you list 2 to 3 sources you think are best (broad coverage, solid publisher etc.)? Pavlor (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source I can find is - [60] - which appears of marginal reliability and is not enough to pass WP:GNG. If it is notable, there should be articles on it. Other cryptocurrencies existing is not a valid argument. Not only that, the others I do see have articles in sources like Wired. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC) To add, FixXxer1865, Independent and reliable sources are needed - and that's the only I could find. Press releases, blogs, their website, linkedin - not valid sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Responding to some of the points made by the article creator above: a company being registered in any particular country is not in itself a sign of notability, nor are the past business careers of those involved (WP:NOTINHERITED). Nor do start-ups obtain any waiver of normal requirements for reliable 3rd party sources to establish notability for a company or product. Rather than taking a punt that unique technology under development may ensure its success, attained notability needs to be demonstrated. I agree with the original nomination that the sources provided in the article are not adequate, and I am not finding better. It is clear from the announcements that development is progressing, but at this time neither company or product notability is established. AllyD (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBut with not prejudice against recreation if new sources turn up. The closest the article gets to an independent source is FutureTechPodcast which isn't really enough to assert notability on its own.©Geni (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I searched for more sources and removed a lot of questionable content. Not sure if that helps. Not too experienced with wikipedia yet.©Jarunik (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarunik The main point of this discussion is to show notability. This generally requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Adding sources is therefore useful but looking at the sources, they're all press releases, and therefore straight from the company rather than independent. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter Added two references. First princeton listing ark as partner. ^[1] plus a research based on Ark technology ^[2]. That should increase the notability a little hopefully.Jarunik (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarunik The first one doesn't mean much - just means they've paid money to be a sponsor. The second is not published yet and only talks about the technology - this is about the company. If you can find more sources then ARK Blockchain can be created. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many Arguments on why have already been posted by others above. The fact that it is the first cryptocurrency to be registered as a legal company in France hints that it may be worth being mentioned. Yes, the fact that company is registered in some country is not worth being mentioned in it self. But "first" and "cryptocurrency" are the keywords here. Also the Delegated-Proof-of-Stake concept is of interest as it covers e.G. Bitcoins Energy problem which is talked a lot of right now. From this aspect ARK is much more interesting tech then many of the CloneCoins which do have it's own article here. So although it might look like just another cryptocurrency it has something to it. The article is not optimal right now, but nevertheless I vote for keep. It can grow. Conflict of Interest Statement: I am not associated with ARK Ecosystem or personell of the legal entity or the developers in any way, I do not own or trade ARKs and have no Wallet. Soulman (talk) 00:11, 10 December 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) 20:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SWED university[edit]

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

No news articles to indicate notability of this school. Is it a dental school or does it offer other programs? Not described in the Mogadishu#Education section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not a reliable reference, their Facebook page shows that it's a dental school / dental clinic combination. I expect there will be no English references, but there may be some in Somali. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is very little evidence of existence. Also, the one claim they make is questionable. This tells me that a more notable Mogadishu post-secondary education school offers dentistry classes. SWED as the "First University in Mogadishu" to offer Dentistry education? Fake news. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON - unfortunately this is one of those difficult cases where it is impossible to make a sensible judgment as to whether the thing exists because it is in another language and there is very little to see on the internet. Being charitable, it is just a new institution without many structures yet, so should possibly be draftified until such time as someone can show evidence that it exists. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No any reference sources, too soon for now, it can be WP:RfU when the WP:GNG on this topic is available in the future. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is built around verifiability, so if we lack sources we delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL8. Not a hoax, an image search on SWED university and this directory listing verifies existence, but it fails WP:NCORP. Sam Sailor 15:10, 11 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Fusco[edit]

z:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 6 November 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}}.

Keep She is famous dermatologist, please seee this link -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/magazine/the-unveiling.html

More

http://www.debbreport.com/directory/entry/dr.-francesca-fusco/

http://www.redonline.co.uk/beauty/10-best/adding-sugar-to-shampoo

Interview

https://thelondonlassie.com/interview/dr-francesca-fusco/

Thakhinma (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. As she appeared quite often on TV, it's worth keeping the article, to be available, when she's next on TV. NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fusco is notable dermatologist, i well known in Sunsilk advertising on Burmese Televisions and more. 楊過007 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC) 楊過007 has been blocked for sock-puppetry power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve sources. Francesca Fusco as a celebrity hair expert should meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was ready to wield the deletion bludgeon, but THIS TV appearance indicates a "recognized expert" status. Also spotted passing mention in a New York Times piece. So I'll note my lack of venom after a cursory Google sweep and move along. Carrite (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references in the article suggest notability; the NYTimes mention is a trivial one-line mention and the others are even less supportive of GNG. She does botox in New York City, and none of the references suggest any notability beyond that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes even close to showing she meets notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve sources Fusco id a celebrity dermatologist in New York. She is a world-leading expert in Dermatology and Dermatologic surgery. I think this article is notable issue.

~~I found in this sources links~~

~~http://www.clearhaircare.com/article/detail/905360/meet-dr-fusco~~

~~http://www.beautyinthebag.com/wordpress/meet-dr-francesca-fusco-nyc-cosmetic-dermatologist/~~

~~https://www.allure.com/story/dermatologist-francesca-fusco~~

~~MahamayuriSMK (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)~~ (MahamayuriSMK is a CU confirmed socks of楊過007 Matthew_hk t c 05:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Are you paid to produce this rubbish? Rathfelder (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am afraid User:MahamayuriSMK was yet another sock of User:楊過007 which the sockmaster was banned for creating User:Thakhinma, so these comments and vote by them should be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/楊過007 for the evidence i submitted for MahamayuriSMK)Matthew_hk t c 08:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable source to have extended in-depth coverage on the subject, just one sentence mention the name and her suggestion, fail WP:GNG Matthew_hk t c 03:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doing a Google News search brings up some positive leads. I see coverage in Orticalab (sorry, Italian's not good enough), Vogue and Marie Claire. Seems she has been covered quite a bit in publications geared towards women and beauty therapy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The orticalab piece appears to be an interview with a swimmer unrelated to the article's subject. Rentier (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, the sources are limited to passing mentions / quotes by the subject (e.g. Marie Claire, Vogue), an interview, directory listings and a piece in New York Times containing some advice by the subject but not focused on her. Not enough to meet WP:GNG, and the fact that the article was created by a blocked sock does not make it any better. Rentier (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed AfDs for porn stars as "keep" with less coverage that is in the article as I write this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there was me thinking that Reedsy (where we both voted delete) had stronger coverage than this subject... Rentier (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you made, and are making, mistakes on both Reedsy and this article? The mistake being that you feel yourself empowered to judge the strength of reliable sources rather than their existence. I think this is a slippery path in that by trying to measure the strength of a source, we are overriding the judgment of the editors of publications such as The Guardian and others, and substituting our personal ideas about a subject's notability. My advice is: please stick to the general notability guideline. It has worked, it works, it will work in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG has always been open to interpretation and there is no clarity to be gained by "sticking to it". I prefer to see a bit more depth of coverage - I don't think a decent, neutral article can be written here without sacrificing reliability and accuracy. In addition, as far as I'm aware, there is consensus that interviews don't normally contribute to notability, so neither should one-sentence pieces of advice given by the subject. Rentier (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources meet the GNG. Article is a bit promotional however and should be trimmed, if kept.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some information profiling her on HighBeam and added it. She's not just "a go-to dermatologist" in the US, she's pretty international. The amount of articles she's in as an expert is pretty staggering. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 00:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Checked the sources. She meets the GNG. gidonb (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Does not meet notability for academics. There are plenty of good doctors that are not notable. Just because the media likes her does not make her notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in reliable and verifiable sources is what makes her notable. Alansohn (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The living person look find to WP:GNG for me, it doesn't seem to be deleted. I agree with User:Optakeover, the reference sources need to be improved. SA 13 Bro (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to withdraw. The article is much improved. She might not qualify as a notable academic, but that is not the only way doctors can be notable. Rathfelder (talk) 10:49, 5 December 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:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vermillion county democratic party[edit]

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

No indication of notability beyond being a localized branch party of a larger political party. Most party groupings stop at the state level unless they have particular news that makes national news. Only one news article from a local newspaper and it mentions both the Democrats and the Republicans from the county asking for young people to vote, nothing terribly notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an independently notable organization; fails WP:GNG. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not an general notability guideline. Even it is independently in the future, the article is WP:TOOSOON for now. SA 13 Bro (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not typically keep articles about individual counties' local chapters of national political parties, except maybe very occasionally in the event that they can be reliably sourced as the subject of an unusual volume of press coverage (i.e. nationalized) that marks them out as significantly more notable than most of their 3,000+ equivalents in other counties. But this isn't: apart from one article in the local newspaper that's about the general phenomenon of encouraging youth to vote, this is referenced entirely to primary sources that can verify additional facts after notability has already been properly supported by enough media coverage to clear WP:ORGDEPTH, but cannot bring the notability in and of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this was a subject that merited coverage, we would have an article that gave a full historical sweep. There are thousands of counties in the US, are we really prepared to have articles on the Republican, Democratic and Whig parties in each of them. OK, Whig in only some. Some other parties would merit articles if this one does. This is not a good plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 7 December 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 Nuestra Belleza El Salvador#Representatives in Big Four pageants. Sans the impressive sock/meatpuppetry clear policy-based consensus.A redirect is more beneficial than an outright deletion.Also, see WP:OSE. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 11:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Mora[edit]

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

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

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

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

There's been a bit of back and forth on this one recently, but it's generally accepted that being crowned a local beauty queen doesn't make someone notable, and nor does competing in Miss Universe (unless you win). The only source - the rest were unreliable - only mentions her in passing. Note: image is also up for deletion at Commons. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's really hard to Google search her, because there are about 5 different iterations of her name and so a search has to be done on all five. Also, unfortunately, El Salvador (due to its size, location, obscurity, and socio-political situation) and Salvadorans are simply not covered well on current Googleable resources. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)alton[reply]

Very true, but I had a good attempt at it per WP:BEFORE and couldn't find anything useful about her. I speak decent Spanish as well and couldn't find anything in local news either. There was this [61] but that turns out to be copied off her own Facebook page, as does everything else (including the flickr stuff) which isn't copied off an old version of our own article (which was largely copied from her old social media). If someone else can dig something up, go for it. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if possible, redirect per the suggestions below. I declined a BLPPROD on this, but I didn't have any luck finding signficant sources myself. --joe decker ^talk 01:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sufficient sources for a BLP. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete It has several sources that are constantly deleted by a "hater" that keeps vandalizing this page. If you read the editing history back to 2013 you will see that person adding the most irrelevant comments, lies and actually bullying Miss El Salvador Julia Mora. Julia has worked for Telemundo and important Spanish language magazines, radio shows and owns a production company that has a verified page on Facebook. If you were to delete her page you should then delete all the Former beauty queen pages here on Wikepidia that only have the pageant as their claim to fame. I think is wrong that a jealous person can go so far to even care if Julia has a Wikipedia page. P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2b01:1a0:2d69:8040:7907:5f79 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)— 2600:8801:2b01:1a0:2d69:8040:7907:5f79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not delete. And please feel free to ask me in private to show you all the links in the internet that give Julia a celebrity status. Julia Mora (born Julia Haydee Mora Maza ) is a celebrity if we go by Wikipedia's definition of what a celebrity is: Celebrity refers to the fame and public attention accorded by the mass media to individuals or groups or, occasionally, animals, but is usually applied to the persons or groups of people (celebrity couples, families, etc.) themselves who receive such a status of fame and attention. Celebrity status is often associated with wealth (commonly referred to as fame and fortune), while fame often provides opportunities to earn revenue. Successful careers in sports and entertainment are commonly associated with celebrity status,[1][2] while political leaders often become celebrities. People may also become celebrities due to media attention on their lifestyle, wealth, or controversial actions, or for their connection to a famous person. Mora is mostly known by her participation in the Miss Universe pageant but also as a TV personality from Telemundo Network, Televisa, TV y Novelas, Estrella TV, Radio stations, and she is also an entrepreneur, she owns a Cinematography business, and has a verified Facebook page, and I have all the links and pictures plus letters from Televisa saved to my computer in case you guys want to see them, because if I post on here for sure the person after Julia Mora will delete them , she was also linked romantically to Hollywood actor Erik Estrada (From CHIPs) and to Venezuelan soap opera stud, Fernando Carrillo. I have seen links on her page proving what I am saying, I have clicked on every single link and they are reliable sources. I even read an article on The National Enquirer this year about Julia Mora and Erik Estrada's wife, it can be verified with The National Enquirer. Somebody here deleted all the links I posted yesterday, he even deleted other links of former Miss El Salvador that have Wikipedia pages and haven't done half of what Julia Mora have done, some weren't even in the Miss Universe pageant. Why then those pages are not nominated for deletion? My answer is: there is a very jealous person behind this vandalism to Julia Mora's page. Below are links to Wikipedia pages that should be deleted immediately and Julia Mora should be left alone, unless some of you have an undisclosed motive and a personal thing against Julia witch to be is childish because this is a serious library. Thank you and please pay close attentions to the links below.
Why would of those girls have a Wikipedia page and not Julia? It doesn't make sense to me unless someone here hates her. Please feel free to ask for my full name, phone number and email address in private.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larissa_Vega, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larissa_Vega, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alisson_Abarca, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Yancy_Clavel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Yancy_Clavel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irma_Dimas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irma_Dimas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idubina_Rivas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idubina_Rivas
Successful careers in sports and entertainment are commonly associated with celebrity status,[1][2] while political leaders often become celebrities. People may also become celebrities due to media attention on their lifestyle, wealth, or controversial actions, or for their connection to a famous person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcelebrity (talk • contribs) — Prcelebrity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Redirect to Nuestra Belleza El Salvador#Representatives in Big Four pageants. I've got two problems with this nomination. The first is its dubious statement that Miss Universe contestants are generally not considered notable. There is no such general understanding and, indeed, there are many, many fields of competition for which competing at the highest level of the activity creates a presumption of notability (via a presumption that reliable source do exist, even if they haven't been found yet). And that's certainly the case here -- representing a nation that takes its pageantry very seriously, followed by work as a television host of a music show, means that the subject must have received plenty of newspaper and magazine coverage in El Salvador. But that would have been in the mid- to late-'80s, which puts it beyond the reach of most on-line searching. Plus that bit about Erik Estrada that landed her on the cover of the National Enquirer (as seen here). But I'm not recommending a "keep", because right now there's almost nothing to say, except for that Estrada business. And that brings me to the second problem -- whatever happened to WP:ATD? {{R to list entry}} is a valid alternative to deletion that requires only that the subject be a plausible search term. And she is. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a redirect. Note that I didn't say that Miss Universe contestant are generally considered non-notable, but that people are generally not considered notable purely because they've been an entrant in Miss Universe - there's a big difference there. And bear in mind this was effectively an unsourced BLP when I nominated it. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete My English no very good but it is injustice if you delete Julia Mora. I read many about Julia Mora, all people in my country know her. We know she is celebrity. Injustice deleting. No very fair.
I think that the mister who said that many miss el salvador have page here in wikipedia no are famous nothing but Julia Haydee Mora yes she is very famous I see her in tv shows, she friends with many celebrities , she was girfriend with Oscar Dela Hoya the boxer and they worked together at FilmON TV last year on his campaign. Many here are not famous and have wikipedia, but Julia yes is famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guanacos1 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC) — Guanacos1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment Do not discriminate my comment. Me English no good but have links: thank you

Julia Mora actress in The Medium http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5446499/?ref_=nv_sr_3 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7052302/

Julia Mora also producer http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7052302/

Julia Mora Writer too http://journalisted.com/julia-mora

Jullia Mora girlfriend if famous man http://www.whosdatedwho.com/dating/julia-mora Mora girlfriend of famous man

Julia Mora a celebrity https://www.celebrities-galore.com/celebrities/julia-mora/home/

https://staffmeup.com/profile/id/60413 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guanacos1 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per NewYorkActuary's convincing rationale. -- Begoon 08:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strong KEEP - biases are showing here (of culture, language, nationality, etc.); we would not be having this discussion abt a comparable 'miss america' (usa) title-holder. these discussions are always kind of stupid anyway. i mean, what; are we afraid that wikipedia is going to run out of space!? :p wikipedia succeeds because we are "the encyclopedia of everything"; we are the "go to" when ppl want to bloody LOOK SOMETHING UP.

the sources arguement, i think can be addressed; there appears to be sufficient material about her out there, in the venues where one would expect such coverage to be.

Lx 121 (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for finding sufficient sources about her - it was more than I could do! - could you add them to the article please (as of course otherwise your comment will bear no weight)? Thanks - Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i refer you to the above-posted examples, to spanish-language news & celebrity coverage IN El Salvador, to the inks already present on the article, & to google; try searching "julia mora el salvador", with google set to prefer SPANISH LANGUAGE results, & i think you will find a sufficiency of material to establish the factuality of her existence, her winning the title, & therest of what is claimed in the wp article.

also worth pointing out that the Miss El Salvador is a national "finals", hardy a "local" beauty contest; respectfully, see my comment re: cultural biases

best- Lx 121 (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you didn't actually bother finding any? That's a shame. The above-posted examples bar one are not reliable sources, which is why they were removed in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no, "in other words" i do not agree with your "cherrypicking" sources to rationalise a deletion. WHERE EXACTLY do you expect to find coverage of el salvadorean beauty-pagent/actress/celebs? in the cia factbook perhaps, or maybe 'the economist'? & on what criteria are you "excluding" these? do you disoute the factuality of her existence? her name? her beauty pagent title? AND if you had "botherd" to try the searches i suggesed, you'd have found some ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, including multiple video materials @ youtube; tv interviews, etc. w.a.d.r. Lx 121 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did. As I said above, I found practically nothing (and I speak decent Spanish). Do you believe that El Salvador is somehow isolated from the Internet? That people from El Salvador have never appeared in reliable sources? It's not the Moon, you know. Please feel free to add this "ADDITIONAL MATERIAL" to the article, instead of complaining that other people do the work for you. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuestra Belleza El Salvador#Representatives in Big Four pageants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I never nominated this page for deletion,i simply said the phantom editor/sock puppet that keeps editing with fake birthdates,etc needs to be blocked. I was suggesting the page be locked,not deleted.

It would be great if Miss El Salvador could publish a video in Spanish with English sub titles detailing all her romantic realationships,marriages and any children.

user prcelebrity keeps leaving biased comments on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete And please to the person deleting this important links, do not be so obvious. Someone here has a good point. If Julia Mora who meets Wikipedia criteria as a celebrity is being nominated for deletion, then all these pages below should be deleted immediately if we are going according to Wikipedia's policies and criteria. Please take a moment to check all the links below and you will know what I am talking about. I will send a message to Julia Mora on her Facebook and I will invite her to come to this discussion or make the video suggested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larissa_Vega
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alisson_Abarca
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Yancy_Clavel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irma_Dimas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idubina_Rivas

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:9163:1D79:6CEF:133D (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:9163:1D79:6CEF:133D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment I agree that the above articles should be redirected to Nuestra Belleza El Salvador#Representatives in Big Four pageants.

If the video does become available, post the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unbolded your !vote in that comment -- you are only allowed one bolded !vote in any AfD. Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - same problem then: "why are minor celebrities of the USA more notable when it come to inclusion in wikipedia?" Lx 121 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nuestra Belleza El Salvador#Representatives in Big Four pageants, per NewYorkActuary, and full protect the Redirect. We've got a massive sock/meat farm constantly trying to pump up or recreate the entry (as evidenced even by the participation in this AfD), so we need protection against that. Softlavender (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a lack of the multiple in-depth sourcing needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - given that she was crowned the winner of a national pageant warrants for something in terms of notability. I think it is hard for other editors including me to find sources online as the year 1985 is quite a while back before the internet became ubiquitous. TalkMe (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nuestra Belleza El Salvador#Representatives in Big Four pageants, as per NewYorkActuary.Richie Campbell (talk) 15:36, 10 December 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 Nomination Withdrawn. With the newly added reference, notability has been established. JDDJS (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mordal[edit]

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

Not a notable comedian. The only reference is a dead link. JDDJS (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JDDJS, I can understand why you've nominated this. I've managed to find out good references like this New York Times link which discusses him and his Wreckreation Nation significantly. Mordal was also featured in The Tonight Show with Halle Berry and Outkast.[62] As he has been the main host for the Wreckreation Nation series,[63][64] and for his significant part in the multiple series of Last Comic Standing,[65][66] I feel that Mordal qualifies on CREATIVE ("The person's work has won significant critical attention") and therefore we could perhaps Keep this article. Would look forward to hear your views. Warmly, Lourdes 11:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources found above include very reliable sources such as a long article in the New York Times, and also Chicago Tribune and Tucson.com so that WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes In light of the new sources that you found, I am okay with this being closed as Nomination Withdrawn, once the new sources are added to the article. I would add them and close this discussion myself, but I'm currently on mobile. JDDJS (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added most of the sources myself and have included some of the material inside the sources too. You could take it from here. Warmly, Lourdes 01:37, 6 December 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.

^ https://hackprinceton.com/#partners
^ https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09918

[0l1Yb-1] Gori, Andrea (1 December 2017). "Raffaele e Massimiliano Alajmo: fratelli in affari". Retrieved 3 December 2017.

[5J83m-2] "Le Calandre tra i 16 ristoranti più "cool" del 2016 secondo Forbes". Retrieved 3 December 2017.

[7SFkT-3] "Le Calandre restaurant review 2012 May Rubano – Italian Cuisine – food guide – Andy Hayler". www.andyhayler.com. 4 May 2012. Retrieved 3 December 2017.

[a6ubt-4] "Le Calandre". The World's 50 Best Restaurants. Retrieved 3 December 2017.

[a7KMX-5] Food & Wine: The Guide to Good Taste. Vol. 33. International Review of Food & Wine Associates. July 2010. pp. 54–. Two years later, they took over La Montecchia and handed Le Calandre over to Massimiliano (Massi or Max, for short) and his older brother Raffaele, or Raf. ... In 1996, the 22-year-old Massi became the youngest chef with two Michelin stars. Six years later, he beat his own record by snagging a third.

[AxP0f-6] "Le Calandre nella Top 20 mondiale dei ristoranti – Corriere del Veneto". corrieredelveneto.corriere.it. Retrieved 6 December 2017.

[cL02V-7] "I 50 migliori ristoranti al mondo, Le Calandre salgono di 12 posizioni". Retrieved 6 December 2017.

[FinancialTimes-8] Hayler, Andy (5 October 2012). "The expert selection: Michelin three-star restaurants". Financial Times. Retrieved 3 December 2017.

[Fodor's2011-9] Fodor's (22 March 2011). Fodor's Venice and Northern Italy. Fodor's Travel. pp. 132–. ISBN 978-0-307-92814-6.

[FoodWine-10] Food & Wine: The Guide to Good Taste. Vol. 33. International Review of Food & Wine Associates. July 2010. pp. 52–.

[H1x47-11] "There is no truth except the one contained in the ingredients – TeatroNaturale.Com". www.teatronaturale.com. Retrieved 6 December 2017.

[Hr1yz-12] "MICHELIN guide Italy 2018 – the new selection". travelguide.michelin.com. Retrieved 5 December 2017.

[Macdonald2012-13] Bob Macdonald (7 August 2012). Knives on the Cutting Edge: The Great Chefs' Dining Revolution. Mighty Media, Incorporated. pp. 71–. ISBN 978-0-9830219-9-5. Le Calandre in Rubano, west of Venice, offers dramatic modern decor in an otherwise mundane village. Now considered one of Italy's most cutting-edge restaurants (it had two stars when we visited in 1998, and got its third star in 2002), we were quite impressed by such offerings as the pumpkin and Gorgonzola flan, white truffle gnocci, poached egg with spinach in truffled cream sauce, and spaghetti with prosciutto, mushrooms, and marjoram. We particularly appreciated the Italian ... Alajmo joined the family restaurant in 1993 and earned his second star at age twenty-two in 1996, working with his brother Ruffaele who runs the front of the house.

[Mesplède2004-14] Jean-François Mesplède (1 April 2004). Trois étoiles au Michelin: Une histoire de la haute gastronomie française et européenne (in French). Gründ. ISBN 978-2-7000-2468-5. Le 19 mars 1994, très solennellement, Erminio Alajmo a remis à ses fils les clés du restaurant Le Calandre, à Sarmeola di Rubano, près de Padoue.

[oXAIF-15] "Recipe for success: three leading chefs talk about starting young in the kitchen". Retrieved 3 December 2017.

[Pyplu-16] "Le Calandre, nuovo corso di Alajmo Via le tovaglie, piatti sul frassino secolare". Corriere del Veneto. Retrieved 6 December 2017.

[rduMb-17] "Guida Michelin 2017, "Le Calandre" confermate festeggiano 15 anni di "Tre Stelle"". Retrieved 6 December 2017.

[re0Bn-18] "World's 50 best restaurants 2010: the full list". 26 April 2010. Retrieved 6 December 2017 – via www.theguardian.com.

[timeout2008-19] Time Out: Italy. Time Out Guides. 2008. pp. 203–. ISBN 978-1-84670-046-0. Massimiliano Alajmo took over his parents' one-star restaurant, Le Calandre, when he was only 19. Not only did he not lose that star - as sometimes happens when a new chef comes in - but three years later he was awarded a second, at a mere 22 years old. Unlike in France, where many restaurants have three stars, in Italy the Red Guide is parsimonious with its highest accolades: to date only a handful of restaurants have made it into the three-star culinary pantheon.

[tvDS5-20] "Le Calandre restaurant owners to open London outpost". Retrieved 6 December 2017.

[vanityfair-21] "Massimiliano Alajmo e la pizza stellata". VanityFair.it. 6 May 2017. Retrieved 3 December 2017.

[VgF9K-22] "Le Calandre restaurant review 2012 May Rubano – Italian Cuisine – food guide – Andy Hayler". www.andyhayler.com. Retrieved 6 December 2017.

[Wazir2015-23] Ravi Wazir (1 March 2015). Restaurant Startup: A Practical Guide (3rd Edition). Ravi Wazir. pp. 280–. ISBN 978-1-5084-4558-6.

[weSVZ-24] "Il Mozart dei fornelli". Retrieved 6 December 2017.

[xbxPZ-25] "Review of Rubano Italian restaurant Le Calandre by Andy Hayler in December 2013". www.andyhayler.com. Retrieved 6 December 2017.

[xtiOt-26] "The 16 Coolest Places To Eat In 2016". Forbes. Retrieved 3 December 2017.

[27] ttps://hackprinceton.com/#partners

[28] ttps://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09918

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[1]

[2]