Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 May	4 May >

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Clare

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

article fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:JOURNALIST as no secondary third-party sources could be found about the subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles sourcing to publications a person writes for and staff bios can not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with regards to HuffPo "This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site." It thus does not establish notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable blogger. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 7 May 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. Due to low amount of participation; although it leans towards keep (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 12:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buck (video game)

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

Video game which is not yet completed. The only source in the article is a link to their kickstarter campaign. I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2], [3], [4] are all I can find that are WP:VGRS. --Izno (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first 3 sources found by Izno are enough to pass WP:NVG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I also find that it passes WP:NVG but the article needs to be cleaned up and the citations put in. - Pmedema (talk) 23:44, 3 May 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) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARRAY Magazine

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

I found no significant coverage for this magazine in multiple searches. SL93 (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The primary coverage in this article does not make a case for GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The brief Editor at Large coverage as one of 8 similar publications does not in itself indicate notability and my searches are finding nothing to indicate that this publication from New York Design Center (which does not itself have an article, so no redirect possibility) is notable. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article lacks notable content and lacks credible sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:46, 10 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Line Cinema's House of Horror

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

Cannot find reliable sources for "New Line Cinema's House of Horror" other than comic books (and as far as I can see there was only one issue of that[5]). --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per this link it looks like there were multiple series put out with Avatar Press. The question still remains as to whether or not this is independently notable of NLC or Avatar Press, though. If we had to merge into one or the other, my suggestion would be Avatar Press since it'd fit in far easier there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lingering New Line Cinema cruft that wasn't taken care of in 2008 when Time Warner merged NLC into Warner Bros. in general; everything now redirects to general merchandise for Warner Bros. licenses or 404's. Otherwise, just a run-of-the-mill brand licensing agreement that didn't go further than after Time Warner restructured their film division nine years ago, and half the article is unrelated 'list-of's regarding films and film properties from NLC. Nate • (chatter) 22:39, 3 May 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) Winged Blades^Godric 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Paramore

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. Effectively duplicates the purpose of Paramore discography. James (^talk/_contribs) 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there is not a list of songs on the discography page, only singles.Drinkdrinker (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should there be. Again, see NOTDIR. James (^talk/_contribs) 17:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is a separate list from the Paramore discography list as it covers every single song recorded by the band. This is a rather standard list, with many examples here. Here are some featured lists that follow this format for clearer examples: 1, 2, 3. Again, this is a rather standard practice so I am not sure about the validity of the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As far as I know, I don't believe the music-related WikiProjects have ever come to an agreement on when a "List of song" type article is appropriate. It's generally considered acceptable with artists with a large percentage of notable songs, (like List of Beatles songs), and generally unacceptable if an artist has virtually no notable songs, but there's no real objective metric for the majority of scenarios. Just an FYI. I'm neutral, for this reason. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment; it would seem appropriate in this case as this band has released songs that pass Wikipedia's policies and standards on notability (i.e. significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources and appearing on notable music charts) so I do not fully understand how this list would not be just as appropriate as the other "List of songs recorded by X". Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem keeping this one, I just wish we had a more clear way of saying "this example is okay, but this other one is not." I've started a discussion on it here at WikiProject Songs, if you or anyone else have any thoughts you'd like to share on it. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with your point completely as it is always good to get additional feedback on a point, especially since it is confusing on what qualifies as an acceptable list versus one that is unacceptable. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. LISTN requires significant coverage of the list members as a group, simply requiring coverage of individual group members is not enough. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@James Allison: I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, but I believe that this discussion is better situated at the WikiProject for songs as this goes beyond only this list as it appears you do not believe there should be "Songs recorded by X" list (to the best of my knowledge so feel free to correct me) so that is something more to figure out from a more discussion rather than pointing out one example of this list from the several pre-existing ones. For instance, what is your opinion about these types of lists that have been promoted to FL status? How is this list different from those (in terms of notability) or how is this different from any other pre-existing lists like this? I respect that you are raising this discussion but, I am still not fully understanding the point you are trying to make here. The list in this instance is talking about all of the songs recorded by this band under the umbrella of a single list or "group", as done for other bands/groups/artists like Faith No More and Pink Martini. I would greatly appreciate a more fleshed-out response for this particular case rather than pointing back to LISTN repeatedly. I will probably stay out of the rest of the discussion here to allow other users to decide about this, but I think a longer response from you about the points raised here would be helpful to reaching a better understanding. Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By group or set, I am referring to the members of the list as a whole: in this case, the set of Paramore songs as a whole. There has been no significant coverage of all of the songs released by this band as a whole. Contrast this to the sources used in List of Beatles songs; there you can clearly see there has been significant coverage in third party sources of the songs as a whole. I do not object to the inherent existence of "List of songs by X" articles. While discussion on a WikiProject could be helpful, I am wary of a local consensus forming that may contradict LISTN. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I would just like to clarify that there are plenty of instances in which these types of lists do not have sources that cover all of the material released by an artist in their entirety in a single discussion/resource. Actually, I have seen very few if any aside from the Beatles list that actually do that. The lists that I have linked previously in the discussion do not use sources in this manner for instance. Anyway, I will leave this up to more experience users to decide and discuss. I am keeping my "Keep" vote for this. I apologize for putting a lot of long responses on here; I also want to make sure that it is clear that I appreciate that you raised this for discussion and I was just trying to make sure that I fully understood your points. I greatly appreciate your responses as they allowed for a civil discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Aoba47's reasoning. Carbrera (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. AfD reason is not supported. These "lists of songs recorded" lists are commonplace on Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article in question doesn't appear to fail LISTN - I don't find it to be a plausible assertion that a multi-platinum selling band doesn't have the bare minimum of RS coverage required on the one thing they do - make songs. I do hope that the WikiProject can come up with some guidelines on how/when articles like this should be created, but until that day occurs, I can't support its deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 9 May 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) 22:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuan Anuwa Tuan Mat

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

Non-notable individual. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these individual are non-notable enough to have Wikipedia stand-alone article. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not involve in major notable events or hold a high position in Malaysia's political activities. --QianCheng_虔诚 11:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election — if you cannot show and properly source that they were already notable enough for an article for some reason independent of their candidacy, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because election per se. But this makes no claim of preexisting notability, and there's no indication that he won the election (which, based on the article's creation date, is now in the past even though the article itself doesn't actually indicate the election date.) If he runs again the next time and wins, then he'll be eligible for an article because his notability claim will have changed to one that we accept as grounds for an article — but running in an election and losing is not a valid reason for an article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 6 May 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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyPenny.me

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

Nonnotable software Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources just aren't there. I did some checking, and all I could find were unreliable blogs. - MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Power~enwiki (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incredibly weak "top 25 awesome apps" lists from the likes of designdrizzle.com don't cut it here. - Bri (talk) 00:09, 11 May 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. I've counted the opinion of the bunnies as a "neutral" !vote with no specific arguments for or agains deletion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Bread

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

Violation of WP:2 SENTENCES possibly? No sources, and the external link is just a link to the product's website --Z L Media 21:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Have asked some bunnies whether this article is notable, most eat carrots and lettuce, not bread, and were unable to provide any information about it. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company doesn't even have a page; the product certainly doesn't need one.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and Gaarmyvet above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:54, 7 May 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) 22:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meidata

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

As far as I can tell, this company does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. I found some "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources" but this "is not sufficient to establish notability. " Smart Bomb (talk) 20:43, 3 May 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 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Israeli market research firm with US branch. Fairly new - established in 2008. Coverage is mainly limited to research reports released to press. Coverage of the company itself does exist - but is far from enough.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:04, 10 May 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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lawlor

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

Nonnotable US county-level politician Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable because county board chairman at a young age. Plays very prominent and public role. Illinoiswiki10 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you bother to click the prominent links at the notability notice sitting at the top of the article you wrote? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage that rises above passing local coverage. He is called a "rising star". Well, if he really does rise and gain higher political office, than so be it. He will then be notable. At present he is not notable. He is in his early 30s, so he is not really all that particularly young. At least not young enough to make an argument his age alone in any way makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks significant content and the subject lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this level, politicians fail WP:NPOL unless outside notability can be found. The article is also poor, saying he has gained "notoriety" for coming out as gay. AusLondonder (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Officeholders at the county level of government are not extended an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as officeholders, but neither the depth nor the range of sourcing shown here are enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. And being gay is not, in and of itself, a free notability boost over other county councillors either — it could make a difference if the coverage of his coming out had nationalized for some reason (and good luck with that in 2017), but not if the local media are the only ones who can actually be shown to give a hoot. And no, age isn't a free notability boost over other county councillors either — lots of people have been elected to office at younger ages than Lawlor. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Point taken John Pack Lambert. I do agree that on second thought the notability here is certainly lacking. I do see that there is likely not enough independent sourcing about the subject to justify notability. Deletion seems appropriate.Illinoiswiki10 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Pantazis

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

Non-notable musician. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC and lacks references, Nothing in Google or anywhere else. MassiveYR ♠ 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of London-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MUSICBIO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:48, 3 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danica Uljević

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

Fails WP:NSPORT, no evidence that she passes WP:GNG, the creator was previously blocked but apparently decided to continue disruption. Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ATHLETE. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The creator was blocked,~~ Ymblanter, but there is a group of editors who have sought and received permission to clean up the articles & attempt to save them. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl:: The original creator, SvG, is not blocked. Indeed the group of editors was doing a trial cleanup, and I was in that group. The trial is over, and all remained articles have been delete. The creator of this article, User:Beatley, was performing low-quality work, once had all their moves reverted back to the draft space, and, when they continued, they were indefblocked and topic-banned from participating in the cleanup. I then unblocked them. They have chosen to continue. Formally it is a new creation, not a topic ban, which likely means they are evading their topic ban by saving a large amount of articles somewhere off-wiki and posting them now directly to the article namespace (thereby also violating copyright).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you see this as a copyright violation? Not supporting the work around the block - but I don't see how it can be classified as a copyright violation without further explanation. Both this and Dalina Bocour are legit articles, with working refs - which was one of the main tasks of reviewing the SvG cleanup articles. Hmlarson (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that it is not legit, just that it is not notable. However, the additional point is that the article was originally most likely created by SvG - who is not currently credited in the history.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the subject of the article is notable is debatable since there is no volleyball-specific guideline and this player has played for her national team at at least one international tournament noted in the article. Classifying this as a copyright violation seems borderline slanderous IMO. Further, since all the SvG drafts that were not reviewed and re-published were deleted, SvG may not be in the page histories of any re-created in the future. Hmlarson (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of NSPORTS is that to be notable, she must participate in the Olympics or in the highest competition in her sports, which is again Olympics, or, if not, the World Championship. I think this is sufficient for deletion, and this is why I nominated the article. Furthermore, I am obviously aware of the fact that all SvG drafts were deleted because I deleted them myself. Still, Beatly obviously and very clearly uses the texts of SvG drafts - you can see it from the fact that in their "new" articles the categories are commented out, like they were in the draft space. By doing so they (i) evade their topic ban; (ii) they post articles written by someone else (SvG) as their own articles. This is copyright violation. For that, I blocked them indef. They are obviously unhappy but so far showed little interest in following unblock procedures.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. Hmlarson (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see where it says it is ok to publish somebody else's text without attribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge with previous draft if needed Since there is no volleyball guideline and this player has played for the Croatia national team and at least one international tournament as noted in the article. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Seems a Volleyball notability guideline would be a good addition as well. Other sports including WP:FOOTY include any player who has played for a national team at international level. Hmlarson (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment sorry for my mistakes above, Ymblanter! I was aware of the rescue project, but not with everyone involved (and I'm always bad with names). Should have done more digging. I did a bit of a strike out above. Thanks for being patient with my mistakes. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 4 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Governors of California by time in office

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

Was redirected to the main list of California Governor's 2 years ago, after this table was inserted there. However, less than a month after that merge, this bit of Original research was removed by another editor as "frankly unnecessary". I restored the redirect, and at the same time restored the table to the target article. However upon reflection I do not think that was the correct procedure. This simply does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely trivial information. Why does it matter how many days someone served as governor? Who is helped by knowing that Earl Warren spent one extra day than Ronald Reagan and George Deukmejian? No one who works on the main article wants it, and it apparently can't survive on its own, so let's just mercy kill it. --Golbez (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Who after all is served by List of Presidents of the United States by time in office? Same idea, subnational scale. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the best good reasoning. That list should be deleted too. --Golbez (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? Obviously people have interest. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That someone has an interest in a subject doesn't make it encyclopedic. --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - What does? List here is factual, easy to verify when governors took/left office and count days, has value in giving one measure of historic impact. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Having the page at a national level does not imply that it should also exist at a sub-national level. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems to me it already exists and we're debating undoing whatever work went in. California might be pointed out to be bigger both in size and population than most nations in the world. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, California might merit this list, but Delaware, maybe not? --Golbez (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the content could be moved to List of Governors of California but that page appears to have already removed it as unimportant. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I honestly don't care much if this article stays, as long as it doesn't get merged into that list. --Golbez (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia has various capabilities (multiple subsections, sortable tables, etc.) that obviate the need to maintain multiple articles that relist the same basic information on different sorting criteria. If there's a genuine need for this information, then it should be in the main list of governors of California rather than a separate spinoff list — and the fact that the editors who actively maintain that list don't want this there is not, in and of itself, enough of a reason to justify recreating and maintaining it as a spinoff. If the place where it belongs doesn't want it, then it just shouldn't be here at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bollywood Boyz

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

Non-notable wrestlers. GNG coverage is limited. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. Three articles in SLAM! Wrestling [6], [7], and [8]. Global News [9]. Burnaby Now [10]. CBC News [11]. Articles range from 2008 to present. Nikki♥311 23:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they are active members of WWE's main roster. No idea why you nominated this. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage, are part of the main roster of the biggest professional wrestling promotion in the world. MPJ-DK 11:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While neither person warrants an article individually, they are notable enough as a duo. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they are notable as duo (not individually). Nickag989^talk 17:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have received constant coverage over an extended period of time. Meets WP:SIGCOV.LM2000 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current WWE main roster members appearing as duo 15:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.156 (talk)
Keep They are members of the biggest wrestling promotion in the world. You tried to do this same thing with the 2016 and 2017 drafts and now this, maybe you should stop requesting deletions for articles because you obviously don't know what's important or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwefan5x (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. Not everyone is going to agree with every nomination. State your case why an article should be kept or deleted, and leave it at that. Nikki♥311 03:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be more notable sources to come and more coverage over time. Hansen Sebastian 15:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Obvious keep: If we get too many of these obvious keep nominations from Sportsfan 1234 we may want to go to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban against him nominating wrestling-related pages for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 7 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin City Handball

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

Fails GNG, ORG. Couldn't find any external references on Google, only an FB page. South Nashua (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG (No article sources that indicate notability. Beyond the single reference [which barely supports a claim of just existing ], other searches return only the run of the mill coverage we might expect for an amateur club with a Facebook page/etc). Also doesn't seem to meet WP:CLUB (the claim that the club won a national competition is not supported, and wouldn't in itself confer notability anyway. As SIGCOV is also required). WP:NOTWEBHOST is also a concern (the "players" section in particular is problematic here. Both for being entirely uncited, and as it seems to be a vanity name-dropping exercise for club members who wouldn't seem to meet WP:NSPORT themselves). In short: Delete as NN. Guliolopez (talk) 10:36, 9 May 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) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CleanLife

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

Fails WP:GNG. A search for the company gives similarly named companies, but not this one. The company appears unnotable and the only sources currently in the article are based on press releases. It also seems to be a mimic of this US company EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:07, 10 May 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. postdlf (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of games using Steam authentication

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

With Steam now having more than 6000 games, and the majority using at least one of the Steam authentication aspects (eg around 3000+ games using the Trading Card feature), this list is now basically mirroring the Steam game catalog, making it a failure of WP:NOT#CATALOG. It also can be a magnet for non-notable games on the service. Perhaps the only special aspect we might track is if there was a retail disc, but even then this seems unnecessary and there are other ways to do this (categories). As such, this list is inappropriate and unwieldy for en.wiki. MASEM (t) 17:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. I also feel there'd be a WP:V issue - as I don't think this is something frequently covered in third party reliable sources. (And if all verification is coming from first party accounts, then we're right back at WP:NOTCATALOGUE - why even document this? Just check Steam itself.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Smartyllama (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Agree with nomination. Acts as a mirror to Steam's catalogue and is unmaintainable due to the size of Steam's catelogue and rate of growth. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate catalogue as per nomination and all other delete voters. Ajf773 (talk) 08:00, 8 May 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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinah Mulholland

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

Page was created within the last few days and is about a prospective candidate in the 2017 General election. The person in question is noted for no reason to justify a wikipedia page Tomdff (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Apart from this, no sources found to support GNG/SNG. Lourdes 18:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates are not notable. Wikipedia is not a place to run free campaign adds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree with above as others are now contributing new content to the page and the person is now a GE candidate making it of more interest to electorate. New edits alter this from a campaign ad into genuinely useful background for voters. [[User: GallantEthel] 06.53 6 May 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GallantEthel (talk • contribs) 05:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections — if you cannot show and properly source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because election per se. But this makes no credible claim of preexisting notability, and does not cite nearly enough reliable source coverage about her to suggest that we could consider her candidacy more notable than the norm for any reason — every single candidate in any election could always show two pieces of local media coverage and a bunch of primary sources, which is all that's actually been shown here. It is not Wikipedia's job to help aspiring officeholders promote their candidacies to the voters — our job is to maintain articles about the people who do hold office, not everybody who merely runs for one. No prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if she wins, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to meet notability criteria, as detailed above. I'd love my own Wikipedia page detailing my lost elections, but the guidelines are the guidelines. --Woodgreener (talk) 18:13, 11 May 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) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axloop Cyberspace Ltd

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

Fails WP:ORG for lack of reliable independent sources. - Mr X 16:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appears to be a significant WP:HOAX element. The article has residual content relating to Infosys and most of the figures in the Infobox are the same numerics as those for Infosys (e.g. Infosys Operating Income US$2.520 billion, Axloop GB£2.520 million). AllyD (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the unverifiable information.- Mr X 19:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found from Highbeam and Wikiproject India searches, and nothing - aside from a Facebook page with 12 likes - found from a standard Google search. Not even enough found for basic validation far less WP:CORPDEPTH notability. A CSD A7+G3 tag may be appropriate. AllyD (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sig cov. Neutrality^talk 04:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:53, 7 May 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 (✉) 17:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kailer Yamamoto

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. It is also WP:TOOSOON – Sabbatino (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added more reliable sources per your speedy-deletion tag and this is your response? Hm. Delete a page with good sources but not pages for other top prospects with less sources and less points in the Canadian Hockey League (Gabriel Vilardi, Stelio Mattheos, Maxime Comtois, Michael Rasmussen and Callan Foote). Makes sense. You'd think being a guaranteed first rounder for months,^[1]^[2]^[3] and winning Bronze with Team USA's Under 18 would be enough. I'm for keep because in the end there's going to be a page for him anyway, it makes absolutely no difference if you decide to delete him now. --Count3D (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you are a relatively new user in terms of edits (~11 years does not mean anything), you should really read those policies I listed. I did everything accordingly when you removed the PROD tag. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weird how this relatively new user recognized there shouldn't have been a tag to begin with while an experienced user did not. Thank you for clarifying wikipedia policy, I look forward to remembering this conversation the next time an experienced user inadvertently tags one of my pages.--Count3D (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is useless to discuss anything with you as you are getting personal towards simple and correct procedure. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ PIKE, RYAN. "Kailer Yamamoto – 2017 NHL Draft Prospect Profile". The Hockey Writers. Retrieved 3 May 2017.
^ Marek, Jeff. "Sportsnet's 2017 NHL Draft Prospect Rankings for January". Sportsnet. Retrieved 3 May 2017.
^ Mitchell, Alan. "The Fastest-Rising Prospects for the 2017 NHL Draft". Bleacher Report. Retrieved 3 May 2017.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Frankly, I'm not remotely moved by Certain! First! Rounder! arguments, because in the half-century I've been following hockey, I've seen any number of Certain! First! Rounders! drop by the wayside. I'm also not moved by the number of blogsites and primary sources being passed off as meeting the requirements of the GNG, which they most certainly do not. Nor does playing for the U18 team meet any notability requirements, least of all WP:NHOCKEY, nor am I particularly moved by what the ranking toutsheets were saying a few months ago, because in the end result, exactly how many 5'8" forwards get drafted first round in today's NHL? (And, finally, taking an article to AfD after a speedy tag's been removed is exactly proper procedure, and scarcely an outrage.) But that being said, the Spokesman-Review and THN sources are good ones, and so this is a bare GNG pass. Ravenswing 19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate coverage to meet GNG. Besides the references already in the article there are a few others available, including this. Rlendog (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think a case could be made for #2 on NHOCKEY given his time in the WHL and his age (professional leagues are not an option for all but the most elite 18-year-olds). However, that's probably a stretch. However, the external references I think are probably enough to pass GNG and WP:YOUNGATH South Nashua (talk) 18:16, 9 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

80/20 (framing system)

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

This doesn't appear to be a notable example of a framing system. PROD was disputed so am taking here according to process. Would suggest a redirect or a merge into framing (construction) or the creation of List of framing systems or something similar. — foxj 16:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a highly notable system and has been around for at least 30 years. There may be some need for a rename if "80/20" is too specific to one maker and too promotional, but the systems overall are an important part of production line machinery manufacture. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: What do you mean by "systems" (plural)? Is there no better place for a general overview of these systems? — foxj 21:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of 80/20 before, nor of TSLOT, nor MBKit. In my country, the best known system is Bosch Rexroth or another system is known as Item. Extrusions compatible with these are available from Valuframe, KJN and many others. The point is that "standardised aluminium extrusion systems for the construction of machine elements, guarding etc" are a notable industrial product, across a whole industry. 80/20 isn't a good name, as it favours a single (and not the original) brand over others, but I'm not sure what we should call them.

Nor do these systems have anything to do with framing (construction). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. :) How about aluminium extrusion system or something like that, then? There's also the fact that the article as it stands is totally unreferenced. — foxj 01:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that, but it has to indicate the field of application too.

Maybe just delete it as "too hard for Wikipedia" and WP:TNT. The world doesn't need this, there are plenty of commercial manuals around and WP's internal biases against using commercial sources for objective topics will make it too hard to produce anything useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could be renamed to genericize it, but it's the de-facto construction system for engineering R&D, one-of scientific equipment, and building manufacturing equipment. But I see no reason to genericize it. We have an Erector Set page and a Lego page. As far as I know, 80/20 Inc. is the originator of the system. We do have a Lego clone page, but from what I can tell, Lego is the primary Wikipedia page for the construction system. Likewise, I'd argue that this page describing the framing system standard should stay as 80/20, or move to 80/20 Inc. and add a section. Either way, the framing-system standard deserves a page. (I only have to scroll down one page in a Google Images search for "scientific equipment" before I find this image which appears to be 80/20-compatible.) —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with the above "keepers". An article on aluminum channel framing systems is very useful. Maybe a more generic title is in order, if one can be suggested. In my experience in the US, though 80/20 is a brand, it's also the generic way many people refer to this type of type of system. But of course that could be managed with a redirect to a more generic page. And as others have noted, this kind of system has nothing to do with the word "framing" as used in the building construction industry. Gwideman (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for all of the input. Learning a lot about aluminium framing systems. ;) I will just note that despite almost literally everyone here saying that this has nothing to do with Framing (construction), that is still the first link in the article and probably has been for a very long time. — foxj 00:43, 10 May 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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carter James

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

Okay - This does seem to be an autobiographical article, or at least a biography written by someone who knows Carter James personally, given the depth and precision of the details and dates. I've done some Googling around for reliable sources, but had little joy - the results are dominated by CJ's Twitter account, and subtracting Twitter brings up very little to go on. It does seem to be WP:TOOSOON for Carter James to be on Wikipedia as while he does have a following through his social media activities and is clearly building up a brand via his tapping into the fanbases for Skam and Girl Meets World, it seems that this hasn't yet translated into notice from independent, reliable sources. If he can be shown to be notable then I've no objection to withdrawing.

I'm well aware that this AFD will no doubt be publicised via Carter James' Twitter account, as the article was also tweeted about VERY soon after it went up on here, so I just want to emphasise that Carter James's notability needs to be demonstrated through reliable sources - ie, not social media, personal blogs, or press-releases - and if this can be proven, then the article will not be deleted. However, if reliable evidence does not exist, then unfortunately, it is too soon for the Carter James Wikipedia article to go live. Mabalu (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional resources have been added to Carters page, including reputable news articles regarding his success in Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:D041:26E0:813E:726B:4EE9:F92D (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previously-deleted article at this title is about a different Carter James, though that one also gave carterjamesmusic.com as a source. —Cryptic 16:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the sources in the article, there is nothing even remotely considered independent rs/coverage and my search is no better. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability guidelines. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Blackguard 18:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The web address "carterjamesmusic.com" was bought in Spring 2016 by the Carter James we are referring to (Electronic/Pop Musician). It was purchased through squarespace.com, and was previously owned by someone of the same name. That persons Wikipedia page was deleted for not being credible. The two are not linked in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markrobinson3 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found in reliable publications; appears to be WP:TOOSOON to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 00:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources that cover James.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Not notable. Citobun (talk) 14:16, 8 May 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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this page. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Player 03 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (contributions to the article)

Run (video game)

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

This game does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. At least, I'm unaware of any reliable source that has given the game any significant coverage.

Additionally, the copywriter responsible for writing the bulk of this article was not payed for her work. Therefore, she didn't give permission for Wikipedia to display it. Player 03 (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All your other arguments notwithstanding, editing Wikipedia is by definition giving Wikipedia permission to display one's contributions. It's right at the bottom of the editing window: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, but Bridget Pringle is the person who wrote the article, and someone else posted it to Wikipedia. Pringle never agreed to release her work under CC BY-SA.

It's like if I posted an article-length excerpt from a Harry Potter novel. I'm not J.K. Rowling, nor an agent of hers. No matter what that little blurb says, that work is still copyrighted, and Wikipedia doesn't have the copyright holder's permission to host it. Player 03 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no indication of notability. Question to the nominator; ~~Are you, in fact, the developer of the game? If so, then~~ I commend your objectivity in this case. Also, I was about to say the same thing as PMC. There's really no legal ground to stand on should this AfD fail and the editor who created the article demand its deletion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am, and thank you. I mentioned this on the article's talk page, but maybe I should have put it here too. Player 03 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good job. I played it and it was quite addictive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If only that was enough to make it notable... Player 03 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on notability. It is important to note, however, that the creator of the article released the text to the Wikimedia Foundation when they pressed "save changes" so they have absolutely no say in what happens to it now. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify: Bridget Pringle was the creator of the article. Someone else pressed "save changes." Player 03 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this really matters. If someone writes copy for WP and doesn't familiarize themselves with the WP:TOS beforehand, that's really not a good defense. This is arguing a technicality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point. Pringle was definitely aware that it was for Wikipedia. Player 03 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say delete earlier, for notability reasons. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it seems that the uploader may have hired a different writer after deciding that Bridget Pringle's work was too expensive. This other writer, Holden Reid, claims to have been paid for his work. It seems unlikely that copyright was going to be an issue, but if this is true, it definitely won't be. Player 03 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: the question is "delete" v "merge" in my opinion, and as there is no obvious merge target, it has to be deleted as not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:50, 5 May 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. Most of the !votes are keep with good reasoning, and an editor suspected some of the delete !votes were canvassed. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 21:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis

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

Pr WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING . Mr Tsibouktzakis is not known for anything, AFAIK, except his murder. Compare him with, say Bassem Abu Rahmeh of Bil'in (who was internationally known at the time of his murder), then wonder why one has a Wikipedia article, why the other one doesn't? Huldra (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up, Bassem Abu Rahmeh - mentioned by Nom. He was hit in the chest with a tear gas canister while participating in a protest March in Bi'lin.[12]. Tragic, but not notable. Note also that when a notable individual is murdered, we write an article about the individual. By contrast, articles about notable murders of individuals not previously notable begin Murder of..., as here, indicating that the murder, not the individual is notable. In this case, ongoing attention has been attracted by the conviction for this murder of Marwan Barghouti.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...ongoing attention ...... by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. While for Bassem Abu Rahmeh, the Israeli court conveniently looses all the evidence. Oh, and I forgot, who told us that we should be the parrots of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel? Huldra (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Insert nonsense reason here. The article is going to be kept despite all the policy reasons it should be deleted, and I'd like to be on the winning side this time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Shabazz: There's a chance that this will get closed as delete; perhaps you'd like to reconsider? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete WP:NOTNEWS and does not seem to be notable in any way. Brexit123 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC) editor Brexit has been banned from Wikipedia.[reply]

Keep: Per E.M.Gregory's reason for creating the article in the first place: it may have happened over ten years ago, but it found its way back into the news cycle again in recent days. That definitely indicates long-term notability. Could use some expansion, but otherwise, I don't see a problem with it. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Blocked as sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Marwan Barghouti. The murder has little or no independent significance. There were a few press reports at the time. Almost all the later references cited in the article are talking about Barghouti, or the Second Intifada, not this murder in particular. This NPR article is typical of the coverage. It has no lasting significance, apart from the larger conflict in which it was embedded, or the person who was convicted of it. When EMG says that this is "in the news" again, it's because the NYT recently ran an op-ed by Barghouti. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. There were a thousand Israelis and three thousand Palestinians killed in the Second Intifada. Is EMG going to create an article on each of them? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The murder has had 3 rounds of international news coverage, in 2001 when he was shot by a terrorist, in 2004 when Barghouti was convicted of the murder, and again last week.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not talking about the murder, they are talking about the person who was convicted; because he was an influential Palestinian leader. Read any news article in 2004; almost the entirety of the article will be about Barghouti, not the murder or the victims. Mostly, even the monk wouldn't be named. The NPR article I cited is typical in this respect. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bassem Abu Rahmeh is covered too – the link is Bassem Ibrahim Abu Rahmah. Notability does not expire and such cases all seem to have a lasting effect and coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the difference is of course, that Bassem Ibrahim Abu Rahmah is not a stand alone article, it is merely a redir. And I would not object to Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis becoming a redir, too.Huldra (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant difference. Whether a topic is a section in a larger article or a smaller separate article is just an implementation detail. Both cases are covered and there's no case for deletion of either of them. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you would be ok with making Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis a redir to Marwan Barghouti, then? Huldra (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of policy is idiosyncratic to say the least. When you say that "notability does not expire", aren't you only quoting half of the policy? WP:N lays down two conditions: The topic should be notable, and it should follow the WP:NOT policy. If the topic violates WP:NOTNEWS, then the second condition isn't satisfied. Besides, WP:Notability (events) specifically lays down WP:PERSISTENCE as a policy. As I tried to demonstrate above, the WP:PERSISTENCE part of the murder is entirely based on the person who was convicted. If the murderer was some low-level Fatah operator, nobody would bother to mention it, just as few of the other 1000 Israelis killed in the Second Intifada are mentioned. Secondly, there is indeed a large difference between a redirect and a separate article. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many AfDs which are closed as "redirect" or "merge" instead of "keep". The crucial difference is that in a main article all aspects of the matter can be discussed in WP:DUE proportion. Almost the entirety of coverage of this matter in WP:RS is focused on Barghouti and the Second Intifada. If one tried to rewrite this article to match the emphasis in sources, it would be a copy of the Barghouti article. So why not redirect it there? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the other 1000 Israelis killed in the Second Intifada" — Now you've done it. We'll have 1000 new articles by tomorrow. Zero^talk 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be OK we have already article every depopulated Arab village with no in depth coverage on the most of them--Shrike (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's acceptance of redirection concedes the validity of the topic and so we're only talking about ordinary editing now, not deletion. I prefer small, distinct articles to large compendia as they are both easier to read and to write. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:Andrew Davidson Huh? Just take an example; I have recently made loads of redirs to Tel Afek, as that place have had many, many different names up through the history, like Recordane and Kufrdani. Does this mean that I think Recordane, or Kufrdani should be stand alone articles? Of course not. Huldra (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That place already has more than one page and it might usefully have even more as, currently, they are overloaded, conflating a modern nature reserve with a Crusader fortified mill, which are somewhat different in both name and nature. The topic we discuss here is even better kept separate as there is no clear single redirect target. Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is no physical limit to our pages and so it is sensible to have distinct pages for distinct names rather than jumbling everything together. Andrew D. (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There is only one Tel Afek, and the whole article is only 15 K. The most important thing about this article (Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis) though, is, as Bolter said, that his significance in the world, according to the sources, was his death. That is basically the definition of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEMORIAL, and not an Encyclopaedia....Huldra (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a separate page for Aphik just as there are for Hissarlik / Troy / Wilusa. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are changing the argument, you wrote "The nominator's acceptance of redirection concedes the validity of the topic". I claim that me accepting this article as a redir absolutely does not "concedes the validity of the topic". You claim that because there is another article about the biblical town of Aphik, (with may, or may not, be located at Tel Afek)...then there should be two articles here? Alas, that is not the same as there being articles about Recordane and Kufrdani (the redirs I created). Oh, and you don't have to state that your vote still stands, of course it does. I’m just interested in the logic, or lack of it, with which you defend it. Huldra (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These other cases are blue links and so should this be too, which the nominator has conceded. Deletion is therefore off the table. As we are retaining the content then the simplest result is to let the page stand as is. The subject was the abbot of a historic institution and so is quite notable. Hypothetical merger and redirection would be more problematic because there is no clear merge target – there were multiple perpetrators, associated events, the locality and the institution. Redirects can only have one target and so it is best that we don't go to an uncertain destination. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidering the topic, in the light of improvements, I continue to oppose deletion. The variation in the subject's name and the corresponding difficulty in locating sources across a number of alphabets (latin, greek, cyrillic, arab and hebrew) means that we still can't assume that everything that can be done has been done and so there is good scope for further improvement per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep clearly notable and covered by reliable sources. In contrast the self defense killing of the rioter in bilin is mainly covered by non reliable propaganda.Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judged on its own merits, I do not understand what the actual claim to notability is. The article fails to explain why it is an article. If it's been in the news recently, the article should be able to explain that with those reliable sources. If this is about Marwan Barghouti, then that should be sourced to something more substantial than this non-neutral passing mention, or this brief line which doesn't mention him by name. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grayfell article has been WP:HEY improved in ways that I believe satisfy your misgivings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I will give it a more thorough review when I get a chance, but at a glance, for now I think merge is appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) He may be canonised as a martyr (2) the convicted murderer is very prominent in Palestinian politics. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for him being canonised? Otherwise this seems like WP:CRYSTAL. As for Barghouti, that seems like a perfect example of WP:NOTINHERITED. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is indeed apostrophized as a "martyr" by fellow monks and priests quoted in news stories about his death, but nothing formal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - When is NOTNEWS going to matter to editors creating these articles? Typical press coverage does not make it notable. Period.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate what I said earlier: the murder may have happened over ten years ago, but it found its way back into the news cycle again in recent days. That definitely indicates long-term notability. And let's not forget all of the reliable sources that make up the article. Forever a warrior against wikiwashing. 03:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The request for deletion seems POV with a rhetoric question implying the comparison of a delibarate pre-organized intended murder of innocents by an organization who's charter is publicly set up for just that, with the death of a demonstrator in a clash with soldiers who misuse non-lethal anti-demonstration weapons. The topic here is the murder of this person, and the deletion request seems to be coordinated with the reported and widely discussed attempts to downplay Barghouti's personal involvement in these horrific actions. As documented in this article, once murdered, Tsibouktzakis' unique lifestyle came to attention, along with the fate of many Christians, especially those in remote monestaries, formerly safe under Israeli rule, and now in areas under control of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas following the Oslo Accords and the failed 1996 peace process. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big mess of WP:OR. Where does the article mention anything about his 'unique' lifestyle? Do you have any reliable sources for this? Do any of these sources pass WP:ROUTINE and WP:LASTING? Grayfell (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A monk living in the middle of the desert, alone or with few companions, is living a unique lifestyle or at least an eccentric one. This is mentioned in the article and elsewhere. Killing the guardian of an ancient monastery, who is not involved in the conflict, is rather significant - and has been covered in reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is significant, but "significance" on Wikipedia is exactly as much as reliable sources say, no more. Right now, all sources are either specific to the time and place the event happened, are WP:ROUTINE, or are overwhelmingly focused on Marwan Barghouti. It make more sense to me to cover it at his article, with maybe some details at St. George's Monastery, Wadi Qelt. Grayfell (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All the reasons are already told. Too much POV here... The NOTNEWS question should not be debated at Wikipedia articles regarding every day violence, not here.Tritomex (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the stated policies of Wikipedia is to show balance in our editorials. Since there is a strong pro-Palestinian sentiment in some articles on Wikipedia, it is only fair to show the "obverse side of the coin," and to show where there have been Palestinian atrocities committed against Jews or Christians.Davidbena (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an editorial, this is an article, and besides, wouldn't that be false balance? We're not here to set the record straight. Grayfell (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC) I suspect that this is a non-native English speaker, who wrote "editorial" when he intended "editing."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, actually, Oxford Dictionary explains "editorial" as meaning in one instance: "Relating to the commissioning or preparing of material for publication." This would apply also to articles written so as to be published on Wikipedia. What I meant by bringing balance to this venue is that if we should delete an article that treats on the wanton murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, per se, we might as well delete the WP artice entitled Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. Just as we are impartial about justice in his case, so we ought to be impartial about justice in this case.Davidbena (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Davidbena, such a justice would only underpin the strong unbalance that there is on Wikipedia wrt these "Memorial" articles. If a Palestinian kills somebody, or a Jew is killed by an Arab/Palestinian, there is an excellent chance that they will get a Wikipedia article, as there are lots of editors over the years who have "specialised" on just such articles. If, however, you are Palestinian victim then the chances are much less to get such an article...with about a magnitude of a 100. It is easy, really, just look up the number of civilian Palestinian casualties, compare them with civilian Israeli casualties, then compare the number of articles about each group. Now, even if the the number of civilian Palestinian casualties is hugely greater than the Israeli counterpart, on Wikipedia, the number of articles on Israeli victims vastly outnumber the number of articles on Palestinian victims. It is as if Wikipedia tells Palestinian victims "F...you! You don't count!!" Your "impartiality" would just cement that injustice. Huldra (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, the criterion should not be the number of deaths, but rather who, out of no menace of their own, died a death that was totally uncalled for and/or unjust, as in the two cases that I mentioned above. Most here would agree that there is no place for an article written about a man who was shot dead after ramming his car into several innocent bystanders.Davidbena (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidbena When I use the words "civilian casualties", I of course only include those who have never taken part in any physical attacks. Seriously, are you disagreeing with me, when I say that the number of such civilian Palestinian casualties vastly outnumber the number of civilian Israeli casualties? Huldra (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no statistics to show you, Israel claims that most of the Palestinian Arab deaths ensued after some instigation of violence against Israelis.Davidbena (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.User:Davidbena That is against every single statistics I have seen, from BTselem, to the UN. You better show me some statistics, here.... Huldra (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral damage vs. actual target of the attack. The targeting of civilians per-se (and no, rioters who hurl rocks are not civilians and are not peacefully demonstrating - but are rather performing a military attack), without an associated military target, by Israel post 1970s has been quite minimal so far. Palestinians, on the over hand, have been blowing up buses and targeting cities with indiscriminate and inaccurate indirect fire. This has nothing to do however with the notability of this article - which is based on on-going decade+ of coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be speaking about two different parameters. I was NOT speaking about the 2014 war in Gaza, where many civilians were inadvertently killed by army shelling. Here, I am specifically referring to these vigilante-style attacks against Israeli citizens and where the assailants are usually shot and killed. As for the 2014 war in Gaza, it has already been duly covered by Wikipedians.Davidbena (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‘the editorial team’

Note A bunch of book refrences - [13].Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator. This AFD is a WP:POINTy response by Nom in response to this: [14] AN/I discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There are many, MANY reliable sources about this incident, which is sufficient to establish notability for Wikipedia. On top of that, this incident keeps on coming up repeatedly, even though it is now nearly 16 years after the killing. As an aside, I think that any monk in charge of a monastery like this [15] (image of St. George Orthodox Monastery from Wikimedia Commons) could be deserving of a Wikipedia mention if enough reliables sources are available! OtterAM (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Saw this referenced at another AfD. I think it amply meets notability requirements. Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I won't give any names, but I was WP:CANVASed into this RfD, which means this RfD, and possibily other RfDs for those bullshit attacks has been rigged. I'll go by the same method I used for a recent RfD. Is this article Encyclopedic? No. How do I determine it? By removing all section headlines and showing it looks more like a WP:MEMORIAL page and not an Encyclopedic article that will have its stand-alone entry in a respected, written encyclopedia about terrorism or whatever:

Tsibouktsakis Germanus (alt. Georgios Tsibouktzakis; Germanos Tsibuktsakis; Fr Gerasimos) was a Greek Orthodox monk murdered by a Palestinian terrorist on 12 June 2001 in a drive-by shooting.
Tsibouktzakis was a member of St. George's Monastery, Wadi Qelt.
Tsibouktzakis, born near Saloniki, Greece, went to Israel as a student, took monastic vows in 1993 and resided in St. George's Monastery for the rest of his life. He was 35 years old at the time of his death. He was an Israeli national.
At the time of his death, Fr Gerasimos was acting abbot and sole occupant of the ancient monastery; he was buried at the monastery.
He was killed while returning from Jerusalem to the desert monastery in a car with Israeli license plates. The monk's superior, Archbishop Theopanes, complained that the Arabic press had mistaken his grief over the death for sympathy with Israel.
The attack was carried out by members of the Fatah-affiliated Tanzim terror network.
In 2003, Ismael Hassin Radeida, a 22-year-old member of an armed faction of Fatah, was convicted of shooting and killing Fr Gerasimos. Radeida told the court had killed the priest in error, having intended to kill Jews driving along the road.
Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti was convicted of murder in 2004 for having directed the attack.

As you can see, it is something that will be found in a terror victim memorial website. There is nothing encyclopedic here. The incident has no lasting effect. Every murder has people convicted of (hopefully) and every murder of a known figure sparks comments, but there is nothing special here. It is simply a murder. We had the same experiance in the Hebrew Wikipedia, when a popular activist was murdered by a terrorist, and after her death, many ceremonies were made in her memory, and things were named after her and her works as an activist were published, but the Hebrew Wikipedia showed an unexpected maturity and said that the article does bring many sources, but in the end, it is simply a memorial page, and it would have never been written if she didn't die. The woman's significance in the world, according to the sources, was her death, and the same thing is here with this priest. He wasn't a notable person before his death, his death wasn't a unique event with much to say about and nothing special happened after his death. He has no value for an encyclopedia. And I am waiting for the clown who will accuse me of WP:POV. And the people who were WP:CANVASed here, please be humane, and delete your comment, 'cause that's just disgusting.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bolter21, You assert (below) that you have been canvassed to come here and make a demand: "And the people who were WP:CANVASed here, please be humain, and delete your comment, cause that's just disguasting." You make this demand in the comment where you iVote to "delete." Perhaps you want to walk back either the demand or the iVote?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not comment, If I wasn't ask to "Vote Keep" as I was in two E-mails from two different users. Heard about that policy/essay telling users not to dominate the discussion and respond to every single comment?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, for the fact that this murder is cited by the government of Israel as one of 5 murder convictions that preclude them form releasing Barghouti from prison so that he can run for office in the Palestinian Authority. And the news coverage that has continued now for 16 years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I stumbled upon this AfD, and I don't have any involvement in I/P matters. I shall just echo Grayfell's argument: Judged on its own merits, I do not understand what the actual claim to notability is. The article fails to explain why it is an article. As the article concedes, it was a drive-by shooting of an unnotable passer-by by an unnotable Palestinian militant. Tragic, but pretty much everyday event under the circumstances. No such user (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Bolter.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The attack was carried out by members of the Fatah-affiliated Tanzim terror network

That is all wrong. As Kingsindian said, the article fails to contextualize the murder. More importantly in such remarks as the above, it links Barghouti's Tanzim to Fatah. The whole point of Barghouti's movement was to challenge the ascendency of Fatah. Barghouti was one of the two favourite interlocutors of Israeli politicians after the Oslo Accords, the other was Arafat. They fell out when it became apparent that the Accords merely justified Israel's occupation, and in Barghouti's view, the PA/Fatah was accommodating itself to this slow-creep takeover. Arafat had an interest in getting rid of his rival. Israel chose in the end to indict Barghouti, and thereby keep him alive (ass an embarrassment to Aarafat) while removing him from challenging the PA, a favour to Arafat. Secondly, the trial was widely reported to be a farce, and a violation of international law. There are here no details regarding the evidence produced in the trial spedcifically regarding the link of Barghouti to the killing of Tsibouktakis, whether he directly signaled T for execution (unlikely, since it contradicts his whole career)= or whether the assassin, being a member of Tanzim, automatically by acting as a Tanzim operative, could be said to have executed T under direct orders from Tanzim's leader, Barghouti. I have no opinion on this matter, of culpability. All I know is that in wiki's neutral voice, just saying B was convicted of T's murder by a court is unacceptable, since it was independently judged by the Inter-Parliamentary Union to have been staged as a media event (hence it got a lot of coverage, used by EMG), compromised by the presiding judge's declared bias on day one, and in all probability a gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, since Israel (as opposed to the Palestinian Authority) had no technical right to put Barghouti on trial in the first place. All of this in the context of the extremely shady manoeverings of both parties in a national insurrection (the Al-Aqsa Intifada). All these articles by Gregory are flawed by the total absence of context, or a minimal understanding of the cases. You have a murder, an indictment or killing of a suspect, and memorial lists of international reactions.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nish, you know a great deal more about Palestinian terrorism and the politics of the several Palestinian terrorist movements than I. If the sources I cited were in error, then I hope that you or another editor with that sort of expertise will clarify Barghouti's affiliations. This is how it works here, articles are built over time, by collaboration. While Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, for me, an AfD is often a prompt to improve an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One reason that I am wary of the articles of this kind you write is that they are written in boiler-plate fresh off the press, and the news does not do an adequate job on background. That is what emerges in historical retrospect, when historians examine these things (notability). All I see in newspapers is what is left out, which is a huge amount. But Wikipedia policy is rightly opposed to my, or any other editor, providing context not in sources. There are no sources that give this background for Georgios Tsibouktzakis, though it is, in historical context, absolutely bizarre, the idea that a man with Barghouti's record would order the murder of a Greek Orthodox priest, even if he had Israeli nationality (which he had). Tanzim was a militant organization ('terrorist' for Israel) fighting in the war (that is ther pro-IDF/Israeli Anthony Cordesman's assessment) that broke out in late 2000. Barghouti controlled Tanzim, which was a paramilitary force partially created to counter the growing attraction exercised by a militant Hamas. But, and this occurs constantly, factional/clan infights quickly invalidated his attempts to 'direct' the insurgency, which got out of hand and could not be micro-managed at the level of everyday actions like ambushes or shoot-outs. Another good example is the murder of Albert Glock. No one has a clue as to what really lay behind that, or Georgios Tsibouktzakis's murder. I am opposed to articles that cannot ferret down, or get to the meat, of such indispensable details. They tell you nothing, except that a murder occurred. It is quite possible Barghouti gave orders that cars with Israeli license plates driving in the West Bank were 'fair game', but to say he 'orchestrated' that specific incident (mfa) is just hot air. I can think, given the intense factionality of Palestinian groups, that any number of other hypotheses exist. But this is just my skepticism, and your request can't be satisfied because there is no sourcing available for any of this (precisely, EMG, why I doubt its notability). Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I responded by making major improvements to the article, satisfying many of Nish's objections. Note that despite Nish's argument to the contrary, media, historians, political scientists and judges hold heads of militant organizations responsible for directing the actions of members of the organizations they run when they have - as Barghouti is stipulated in media reports to have done here - issued blanket orders for the killing of specific categories of human being.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin

There has been WP:CANVASing going on here, see this Huldra (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nishidani wrote it up it here: [16], and I wrote about it here: [17]. Is this the "canvassing"? or is there something else?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got an Email from blocked user and another casual Email Canvasser who asked me to "vote Keep".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that article has been expanded in ways that I believe obviates the objections above. It had 9 sources when Huldra AfD's it. It now has 19 solid sources showing ongoing, substantive, international coverage. Variant transliterations of victim's name form Cyrillic and Hebrew alphabets, variations in his name (changed names on taking vows), and variations in the name of the monastery make the searchbar above virtually useless (I have listed alt. names in article; I suspect that there are more alt. names out there.) There must also be sources in Greek, I didn't even try to search in Greek.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely typical behaviour by EMG: they puff up the source count to try to add notability to the article. The added sources that fill the references (except the news reports in 2001 in the immediate aftermath of the murder) do not deal with the murder; they are almost entirely about Barghouti and mention his conviction in a line or two. That counts for EMG as "ongoing coverage". Just read the title of the sources added: "Palestinian leader convicted of ordering shootings". "Marwan Barghouti not to be released, Israeli minister says", "Two guards die as Palestinian leader is caught in gun battle" etc. There are exactly two extra sources which deal very tangentially with the monk. One is "from the archives" from Jerusalem Post, which I'm guessing simply reprints some articles from their archive. (I can't actually find the text, since I don't have a ProQuest subscription). Another is Breitbart, which is simply recycling a Palwatch press release about some Greek bishop who attended some ceremony in Bethlehem which, Palwatch says, inadvertently honoured, among other people, a terrorist who killed the monk. This apparently counts as "ongoing coverage". This kind of source count puffery is ridiculous.

What I find absolutely amazing is that there is still no mention in the article that this murder happened during the Second Intifada. Does EMG think that this is some incidental detail? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really should read the links before dismissing them, the headline "Two guards die as Palestinian leader is caught in gun battle," for example, refers to an incident when Mahmoud Abbas was caught in a firefight between his guards and a more militant Palestinian faction, but the article is about the political contest between Barghouti and Abbas over who would succeed Arafat. It is materially relevant to your assertion that this murder had no impact. Impact was that it kept Barghouti in prison, and out of the Presidency.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The JPost source is happened-x-years-ago article, not a reprint. I added it because in revisitn=ing this murder it made an assertion I had not heard before, that this shooting of a random motorist in a car with with Israeli plates by a terrorist was a "first" in the "area". Terrorsm tactics constantly evolve. For those unfamiliar, Israeli plates are given to legal residents of Israel, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish - the Vietnamese boat people Israel gave citizenship to get them too. This is why it is relevant that the terrorist stated at trial that he had mistaken the monk for a Jew; i.e., he was scanning the occupants of cars to make sure he was killing a Jew, not a Muslim. and shot a Christian by mistake.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is on page as a category. But, why complain here, why not just add it? Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I have indented all of your comments to the appropriate level) In other words, the article is about Barghouti, not the murder. Exactly as I said. Notability is not inherited, and you can't cite stories about Barghouti to claim "continuing coverage" about the murder. Barghouti was convicted of four other murders as well; are you going to create a separate article for each of them? He would still be in jail if this murder hadn't happened (he got five life terms).

As for the yellow license plates issue, your comment makes no sense, and you have mangled the original source (it says "Israeli", not "Jewish"), as I pointed out on the talkpage a few hours ago. If all Israeli legal residents are given yellow vehicle plates, how can the attacker use license plates to get the religion of the victim? It sounds to me that the attacker got Gettier cased. While that may be an ironic philosophical point, I fail to see what is significant about it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability comes from secondary source coverage of this terrorist killing of the Abbot of a notable Monastery; some of this coverage is generate by the fact that the killing of a Greek monk by a terrorist draws press attention (see 2014 Kabul restaurant bombing for another case where the identity of the dead drew press attention,) and some from the fact that one of the convicted terrorists is a well-known political activist (see as the 1969 PFLP bombings in Jerusalem for a similar case), but notability, per WP:GNG is gauged by coverage that is extensive and ongoing, as here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I urge editors to read the article, and the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We read it don't worry.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to apologize to anyone who has been annoyed by the the slow build-out of this article. I certainly thought it was adequately sourced when I began. But as continue to work on I find that I had missed some important aspects of the story. While I am sure that better sources exist for those who can read the Hebrew and Cyrillic alphabets with ease, the number of possible transliterations of Georgious Tsimtouktsakis makes this slow work. I missed stuff at first, like the fact that the international coverage of the article was driven in part by the fact that George Tenet and William Joseph Burns were busy forcing a truce down Palestinian and Israeli throats, signed the morning after this shooting. The shooting was part of Marwan Barghouti's pledge to spit the cease-fire back up even before it was signed. Point is, some of the editors who have dismissed this as inadequately sourced, may want to try out of few good keyword searches for themselves, or look at the sourcing now in the article. Or even at the deleted material. And perhaps reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the build-out here - it is much-much better now in terms of sources. Also - from some searching for sources on my own - the alternative spelling and psuedo-name / titles (which vary) - are also a mess - a rather big mess. This attack occurred at a significant juncture in the 2nd Intifada (possibly first drive-by shooting in this round (is claimed in text - certainly not first ever (there were a few in the 90s) - but possibly intifada2)) - affected things on the ground, impacted a major cultural site (the sole residing monk/acting-abbot at a very iconic monastery), and killed a foreigner (which always generates more coverage) who was also church-related. Adding that this is one of the murder convictions (for direction) of Marwan Barghouti who is receiving on-going coverage in RS - generates even more coverage. Coverage abound - definitely enough per WP:CRIME.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think E.M.Gregory did a nice job addressing a lot of the critiques in the edits to the article, making it more well rounded and encyclopedic. As I mentioned above, I thought that this was a Keep from the beginning. (I was familiar with this case even before the creation of the article by E.M.Gregory.) However, now, with more context and new references I think it's an even stronger case. OtterAM (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not crime'opedia. No long-term significance or lasting societal impact shown, despite recent article improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that the fact that he was convicted for this murder is part of what makes Marwan Barghouti a leading contender for election to Presidency of the Palestinian Authority (cf. this Avi Issacharoff analysis [18].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This might justify a mention in Bargouti's article, not a stand alone article. All of your arguments are really broken. You have provided some 30 sources, but almost all of them are just new reports, mostly the same report from a different news paper. This is not "significant coverege". The MFA source is a propagana source. It can be reliable for technical info, but not as a source for exteinsive information, and absolutely not an indication of notebility of the incident. The MFA source is a propaganda piece against Marwan Bargouti, not about the death of the monk. Breitbart News is also not a serious source and the article there is about a memorial ceremony. There is no indication what so ever that this incident is special. It has coverege, because someone unique was killed and the alledged planner of the attack is an important Palestinian figure. This means that the subject is worthy of mention in Bargouti's article, and most of the comtemporary sources deal with Bargouti anyway.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, two editors, one of whom iVoted K and the other D above, recently vetted the article with extreme care, removing all instances of "the same report from a different news paper." Coverage at the time of the attack was in-depth and worldwide, with details of his life sourced to foreign press accounts. Articles like this month's AP story: "Barghouti, who is serving multiple life terms in prison after Israel found him guilty of involvement in the deaths of four Israelis and a Greek monk, is widely expected to run for president once Mahmoud Abbas is out of the picture." [19] show significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here, again you use a very technical argument. "Look, there's an article about Bargouti with mention to the monk, so an article on the monk is justified". I don't give a damn about how many article you"ll bring to talk about that terrorist and his victims, you still don't show why the incident of the monk is notable, without the argument of "there are many sources". Many sources for what? For a monk who was killed by accident in a terrorist attack, one in a million, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What is notable here? There are 8,000 victims of terrorism in Israel, not each one gets an article. Sure the monks and the foreign students who are killed get their coverege because the media likes them, but that doesn't make their death notable.--Bolter21 (talk to me)

Bolter21 - the monk is not notable. His murder is. Both due to Bargouti and due to him being a foreigner and a church member to boot. I agree this page should not be a memorial (and in respect to the Hebrew wiki - this makes sense). However this particular attack - has lasting significance. The page itself should focus on the attack and ramifications - not on the monk himself where coverage should be limited to basic background material. If this page is deleted (which I think is wrong) - then we should merge this to Bargouti's entry - as the circumstances surronding his convictions are highly relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter21 writes, "get their coverege because the media likes them, but that doesn't make their death notable." It is certainly true that the media gives disproportionate coverage to some things, fairly or unfairly. But, I do think that this excess coverage does increase an event's notability. (While the reverse is not necessarily true as long as there exists at least some good reliable source.) For example the Wikipedia:Notability (events) page gives the example of the Runaway bride case as a notable event due to its media coverage, even though it later turned out that no crime had occurred. OtterAM (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no compare between the two incidents, especially when you look at the fact the murder of that monk was done in a perid of five years full of simmilar terrorist attacks, within a 90 years old conflicts full of simmilar murders. The bride case, as seen in the article is notable only because it was popularized by the media and eventually even became an "example" in books and articles. The muder of the monk was not popularized by the media, it was just mentioned a few times by a few news papers and most of its references after 2004, are just referring to Bargouti, which is a subject of its own.This unsigned comment was made by Bolter21.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be sufficient sources for the page - it's notability has lasted over time. Cypresscross (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article meets WP:GNG standards; has also has WP:HEYMANN improvements.I created article, improved it,E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)♚ 13:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this page forms a useful link from Monastery of St. George of Choziba, Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, Marwan Barghouti and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've read over the article and have no recent (last ten years?) involvement in this topic area. I don't see the claim to notability. There was a murder and some press coverage of the fact, and it had some ripples in the ongoing peace process. There's nothing much to build on here. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is notable because the noted Palestinian leader Barghouti was (rightly or wrongly) convicted of masterminding the attack, and because of the religious status of the victim also makes it stand out. (I don't mean to say it is notable because he was a Christian religious, but simply because he was a religious official (abbot) – if he had been a Rabbi or Imam instead, it would stand out just as much.) In general, I am sceptical of creating articles on every single low victim count attack in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, because there are so many of those; but, I think this attack has enough distinctive characteristics to overcome that general scepticism. SJK (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note This week at the United Nations, Palestinian representative Riyad Mansour was on his feet making demands about imprisonment of Barghouti, Israeli ambassador Danny Danon was calling a Barghouti ""a terrorist and a murderer" and the AP-based McClatchey story read: "Barghouti, who is serving multiple life terms in prison after Israel found him guilty of involvement in the deaths of four Israelis and a Greek monk, is widely expected to run for president once Mahmoud Abbas is out of the picture." [20]. My point is that far from fading form sight as most murders do, even most WP notable murders, the murder of this monk comes into the news cycle with increasing frequency as the years pass. (Last week Barghouti had an op-ed in the New York Times, prompting a wave of criticism of the Times for not mentioning that he has been convicted in this and other murders. Next week it will be somehting else, because Mahmoud Abbas is old and Barghouti is the/a leading candidate to replace him.) Having an article where interested readers can find reliable, objective information about stuff like this is what Wikipedia is here to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not great at counting, but it seems to me that you have now made 21 separate additions to this AfD. It is not ok for one editor to attempt to dominate an AfD process like this and this is not the first time you have behaved in this fashion. I think you should stop it. Zero^talk 12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention your comments are ridiculous and repetitive. Do we have to make an article for every British officer killed by a Lehi or Irgun attack because it was planned by Begin or Shamir, two Israeli Prime Ministers? You are giving us arguments about Bargouti, but this is not an article on Bargouti.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article about a murder that received substantive international coverage when it happened, and that has been in the news regularly in the years since because a leading politician was convicted of murder in this case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means the politician is notable, not the murder.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: I don't think that it's a valid argument that, just because another article doesn't exist yet, this one shouldn't either. The thing is that this one does exist because somebody took the trouble to find a number of sources, put together an article, then revise it and expand it based on criticism he got. It's undeniable that this murder had some political repercussions, and it's also clear that the existence of this event is periodically mentioned by reliable sources from around the world. So, while the "importance" of this event may be debatable, the WP:Notability is well covered. If you can create an new article about a Lehi killing of a British officer that had some (if minor) historical repercussions, I say: go ahead. After all WP:NOTPAPER. OtterAM (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: Should we send The Sergeants affair to afd? Somtimes the murder is significant even if the person murdered is not. In the case of the monk thrre is simply on going coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor OtterAM: What do you mean by, "just another article doesn't exist yet, this shouldn't either"? The event can be summerized in a section in Marwan Bargouti's article. Most of the information in the article is proves no notablity what so ever. It is like a WP:DIARY but instead of a person, we are recording every development in a story that hasn't had any impact what so ever and is far, far, far away from having significant coverege to justify an article. This article still gives you no more knowlege than what a WP:MEMORIAL page or a news paper can give you. It has no encyclopedic value.

Thanks for your answer. To answer your first question, I'm saying that just because a different article hasn't been made yet doesn't mean that this article shouldn't exist. There are two criteria for WP:AfD, verifiability and notability. The article is very good on in terms of verifiability, and was improved during the AfD discussion by E.M.Gregory. As for notability, how else would you explain why this 16-year-old murder continues to be mentioned in newspaper/media articles in the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Toronto Star, etc if it is not notable?! OtterAM (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Icewhiz: if you mamanged to compare this pity incident with the Sergeant Affair, an affair I, my brother and my father (back in the 60s) learnt about at school, I doubt your contribution to the discussion. I wouldn't bother, but I had to explain to you and the poor admin who will read this, the difference. The Sergeant affairs was a turning point. The incident was so significant, it led to the end of the hanging of Jewish insurgents, and it also led to the killing of five Jews by the British and widespeard anti-Semitic riots in the United Kingdom. The incident was covered by dozens of books and articles in more than a mere sentece, but in full chapters. The murder of the Greek monk sparked and caused nothing but comments and arrests that were covered by media outlets who report comments and arrests regularly.

I didn't want to answer because I think I commented enough on this thread, which is something some users should feel, but I responded becuase both of you responded directly to my comment.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: Looking through some editing histories, it seems to me that almost all the articles created by "some users" are immediately nominated for deletion by the same small group of editors, leading to the same discussions on subsequent AfDs over and over. Many of these AfDs have ended up with the articles being kept (while some not). However, it seems to me that the continual efforts to purge this certain editor's contributions from Wikipedia ends up in a waste of time for many contributors. If somebody want to write well-sourced articles about murders in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I say let them. If someone else wants to write well-sourced articles about minor, depopulated Palestinian villages of 15 families from 1948, I say let them do that too. OtterAM (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A village is a village, not an event. I would have loved to be the one who will create thousands of articles on depopulated Kurdish villages with 15 residents, but I am unable due to the fact no one cares. I "fight" here for what I think Wikipedia should be, which is the way I interprate it's policies. I do not try to promote a personal agenda or to hounde any user. This user in question has created dozens if not hundreds of articles, many of them, with all respect, seem needless in my eyes, but I don't have enough knowledge to judge there. On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I do have knowledge and it is my main field of editing in Wikipedia and when I see that a user creates articles I think shouldn't be there, and I know the background and the subject, I will speak against it. There were already some here who claimed there is some sort of a scheme to whitewash all of the articles about Palestinian atroceries in order to promote a pro-Palestinian cause, so I do not get excited when you hint I am part of a systemic raid on Gregory's articles. Don't ping again if your comment is about personal matters. As I said, my contribution to the discussion was made long ago and I shouldn't be adding more comments, just as I demand Gregory to do so.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter, would you be willing to look at the article & sourcing again? I know that you read it before, but your comments make me think that you may possibly have missed the recent expansions showing the depth and unusual breadth of coverage at the time of the attack, including coverage in publications like the left-of-center Christianity Today that do not routinely cover events in Israel, and, especially, the "Content" section detailing the coverage of this incident in the context of the cease-fire that Yassir Arafat had declared in effect at the time that this shooting took place. I am certainly not attempting to create an article on "every" event in the second intifada, but I do feel that this article meets the standards set forth at WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again yesterday, my opinion hasn't changed a bit. The expansion of the article only strenghten my opinion that it is uncessariy. In my eyes the improvement made to the article did not contribute to its encyclopedic value, but instead were more of an attempt to save this article in the wake of the RfD. AGF here.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that we have very different views about what WP:GNG states. I do, however, ask that you do me the courtesy of WP:AGF and grant that starting an article on a murder that, in a case when long experience regularly editing CRIME and TERRORISM articles leads me to regard this event as a notable event and useful addition to the encyclopedia. I was genuinely shocked to see an article on a long-ago terrorist attack that had returned to the new cycle taken to AfD. Improving an article at AfD with WP:RS is generally regarded as a positive contribution to the project. I am at a loss to understand on what grounds you criticize me it. WP:HEY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hinting anything about you. As far as I can tell (I haven't looked closely) you seem to create a bunch of solid articles about Israeli towns. I'm mentioning something I noticed about E.M.Gregory's history – there are at least 6 articles he started about various terrorist incidents that *immediately* got nominated for deletion, at least 4 of which survived. I don't know if you've interacted with him before, but if he wants to comment on an AfD about an article that he's involved with, that's his right. If you want to comment here or not comment here, that's your right too. It's a free encyclopedia. OtterAM (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is not MurderPedia. Every single death in the second intifada does not merit its own article. Not notable on its own at all, and the various reasons it should be deleted have been laid out in detail above this comment. CrispyGlover (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The user doesn't meet WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 criteria.--Shrike (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Brigadoon SPA? Due to shenanigans by 2 sockpuppets above, I looked at this unfamiliar editor (although there are unfamiliar keep voters here, most of the keep and almost all of the delete ivotes come from editors who regularly edit I/P.) CrispyGlover joined about a year ago with a familiarity with our terminology, aplomb, and random-appearing range of interests rare in a new editor. On his first day he made a series of smooth edits to the article on Allentown, PA, and other neutral topics, weighing in with the vocabulary of an experienced editor at a series of AfDs. He has since appeared about once a month, always with a similar pattern: a series of rapid edits on disparate topics and a range of AfDs. Could he be a sockpuppet of one of the 2 sockpuppets who weighed in above but were blocked during the course of this AfD? Sure. He could be a sockpuppet of anyone. I don't know how to bring him to book because I have no idea whose sockpuppet he is. What he does not appear to be is a "normal" user. Posting this here in case his editing pattern rings bells with another editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome any and all sockpuppet investigations. I started out editing as an anon IP years ago. When I discovered the deletion discussions, I realized it was time to register an account. I use the registered account mainly for deletion discussions, and sometimes I'm still logged in unintentionally when I make edits to articles. I expect an apology from E.M.Gregory (talk) for automatically assuming nefarious activities just because I don't agree with his point of view on one particular topic. I've never edited this particular page in my life and wasn't even aware of it until today when it was the oldest still-active deletion discussion. My view on the article's notability is thus completely and totally impartial - unlike E.M.Gregory (talk), who pretty clearly has an agenda here. CrispyGlover (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments by KingsIndian, Bolter and Nishidani. The weakness of EMG's case is emphasised by his or her need to respond to so many different editors. --NSH001 (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above editor's comments and detailed case that the page is notable. Randy Kryn 16:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have lots of articles on notable murders. This one seems to fit the bill. Srnec (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is dead, BLP1E does not apply, so it falls to GNG, which this article meets. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been improved substantially by E.M.Gregory since most of the early comments were written, and I think we need to revisit the article in its current state from scratch.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333 forgive me, but I have never seen this done before. Can you be more precise about what "revisit the article in its current state from scratch" means? Are we effectively blanking the discussion above this line and starting fresh again from scratch?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that everyone who commented earlier should look at the now-improved article and judge if their !vote is still valid, though there is no obligation for them to do so. At the moment, I think consensus was marginally towards "delete" in terms of arguments, but those arguments were based around old versions of the article. So a relist is necessary; if after this iteration there are no new insights, I think it would be reasonable to discount the older "delete" !votes and close with "keep" instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I'm not sure what relisting is supposed to achieve. According to the policy, relisting is typically done when there is low participation in the AfD. This is obviously not true in this AfD. As one of the earliest !voters, my !vote is exactly the same for the expanded article as for the original article, because the new references are just filler. If you think it's no consensus, then close it that way. If you think it's delete, then close it that way. There's no point in dragging this out. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check when KingsIndian cast his iVote, the page looked like this [21]. Additions have been more than "filler," adding, as they do, info about reactions to the killing, the actors involved in the killing, the fact that Arafat had declared a unilateral ceasefire before the killing, the New York Times assertion that this Palestinian sniper attack was a first on the road leading east from Jerusalem. And more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Deletion process, "If there is a lack of comments, or the action to take is unclear, the discussion may be relisted for an additional seven days." If I closed it as any of "delete", "keep" or "no consensus", somebody would complain, so I think it's better to run with it for another seven days to make absolutely sure we've got the right decision. I would also point out that this AfD was right at the back of the queue of discussions to close / relist; obviously all the other admins were terrified of touching it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (apologies if this overlaps with stuff above, but I thought I'd sum up my opinion for the re-list) The article is long enough (beyond a stub length) and doesn't appear to have undue weight in any one aspect (the victim, the event, the alleged perpetrators, the political situation, or the aftermath). The article is verifiable with every assertion backed up by a reliable source, mostly news articles. The topic has persistence because it continues to be mentioned by a number of major world media sites (BBC, New York Times, the Guardian, al Jazeera, Times of Israel, etc.) 16 years after it occurred. The article has links from several other Wikipedia articles, including the Marwan Barghouti article which got more than 18000 views in the last month. Merging all the information in this article into the Marwan Barghouti article would be undue weight for the latter article, because Barghouti, as leader of the Second Intifada, was involved in many other diplomatic and militant incidents. Nevertheless, this event is important because it is one of 3 incidents that Israel used to convict Barghouti, another of which also has its own Wikipedia article. The incident also occurred at a (marginally) notable juncture in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, breaking one of many ceasefires during the Second Intifada. Georgios Tsibouktzakis could be considered (marginally) notable himself due to his work to maintain the Monastery of St. George of Choziba. The article meets the criterial of WP:NCRIME due to past and present media coverage. (This is not the only WP:NCRIME article on Wikipedia with only one victim.) Anyway, thanks for your patience reading all this :). OtterAM (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LASTING - continued coverage many years after the event. Passes WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a thoroughly sourced, fully detailed article about a major incident that far surpasses the minimums of the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I changed my vote in light of Gregory's expansion. I still think it is simply a news incident but I suppose editors are more lleniate with that policy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Article and it sources support lasting notability of this murder. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the topic has sources from 2001, 2003 and 2015, indicating that it passes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTABLE. We may consider renaming to Georgios Tsibouktzakis in line with biography article rules.GreyShark (dibra) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - continued coverage throughout several years. good sources. sources supports notability and lasting such. also WP:GNG applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have long since decided that there's no point to these AfD discussions, because of mindless voting like the ones seen above. The "expansion" by EMG is pure filler, as I demonstrated above. Almost all the sources past 2001 are talking about Barghouti, not the murder. This is because Barghouti is notable, the murder isn't. There was some initial newspaper coverage because the victim happened to be a foreigner; none of the four other people whose murder Barghouti is supposed to have directed have an article. The murder had no lasting significance: a thousand Israelis and three thousand Palestinians died in the Second Intifada, and this murder is no worse or no better than any of them. This article conspicuously does not even mention the fact that the Second Intifada was going on, because it undermines the point of the article. The article is irredeemably horrible, as I detail on the talkpage. EMG's "expansion" has not addressed a single one of my points I raised there, which does not surprise me in the least, because I know how EMG operates. This is why I suggested that it be merged or redirected to Marwan Barghouti. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I worked in the Second Intifada and context in the scope of hostilities. You could've just fixed this instead of repeatedly bringing it up.09:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that Kingsindian has now removed a large swath of WP:RS material connected with this murder by multiple WP:RSs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 9 May 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) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Reynolds

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

Niche awards not sufficient to meet pornbio and fails the gng by a mile. Even if we accepted the awards we should not host a blp with poor sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The award in question, Urban X/Urban Spice, has never satisfied WP:PORNBIO by itself as a "well-known and significant industry award," niche category or not. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet project notability guides at this time. ValarianB (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Urban Spice/X Awards fail the "well-known/significant" test. The Maxim- related claim can't be verified and wouldn't amount to significant coverage anyway. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:43, 7 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit (Telugu actor)

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

NN actor Nördic Nightfury 10:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Euryalus (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor actor in minor films. ValarianB (talk) 19:22, 3 May 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) 22:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Sheridan

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

Scene awards no longer count so fails pornbio and gng, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No qualifying awards, just scene awards and nominations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:39, 7 May 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) 22:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Elson

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

Non-notable kickboxer - sources don't support any claims. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable kickboxer with no significant independent coverage. I can find no evidence to show he meets any kickboxer notability criteria at WP:NKICK. An unsourced claim that he once fought other notable fighters adds nothing to his WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability requirements.ShadessKB (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 7 May 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 circumstances have changed since this article was nominated for deletion. The 2017 election has now taken place. Our common practice is that the next future notable election will have an article, as WP:CRYSTALBALL sets out as an example. As noted by respondents here, that says "future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"; we know this event is notable, as we already have the prior election, and it is almost certain to take place. Further, we also have the precedent of other AfDs, such as this one to guide us. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. Note: This AfD was also combined with Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2020, to which this closing rationale also applies. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands mayoral election, 2020

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

for exactly the same reasons. There are no sources so the speculation is not well documented. Domdeparis (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous mayoral election hasn't even taken place yet. there are no sources no candidates declared. this article fails WP:GNG and is clearly WP:TOOSOON. The only source provided deals with the upcoming 2017 election. creating pages is not a sort of competition or race to see who can be first. Why not create the 2024 2028 2032 elections too? Domdeparis (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment WP:CRYSTALBALL specifies that future events should be included but

" If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

there are no sources in this article so the speculation is not well documented. Domdeparis (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sources Both articles have sources the West Midlands article has ITV (last sentence) and the Greater Manchester article has Gov.uk (in the section "Devolution revolution"). How is that "not well documented"? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about this one. I think Domdeparis has made several valid points. On the other hand generally there is an article about the next election in the UK for regional contests. Equally after Friday we will know the result of the 2017 elections in both areas and there may start to be discussion of what happens next time that could be used. Dunarc (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now think it should be Keep It is now the next election and I think there is enough evidence it is notable.Dunarc (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't have "election after next articles". Number 5 7 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that the general consensus is that we tend to have articles for the next local election, but not the one after. Taking that on board, I would argue that this article was a case of WP:TOOSOON, when it was created two days ago, but right now, it is the next election, so therefore it is no longer a case of WP:TOOSOON. CarlDurose (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The results will be out this evening. Also my reason for creating Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2020 was to inform readers that whoever wins tonight will serve three years rather than four, to bring it into line with the London mayoral election, 2020. The 2020 London Mayoral Election article was created in July 2016 and I note with interest that there is no AfD attached to it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STOP PRESS: Just found this: WP:Articles for deletion/London Assembly election, 2020 back in February this year. The result was keep. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' The election results are in and Andy Street is Mayor, the election might be three years away but having the article makes people more aware that it is only a three year term, rather than the four it will be from 2020 onwards. We have "next election" categories even for the 2022 General Election, so I don't see why that should remain and this shouldn't. I feel based on past crieteria it doesn't qualify for deletion. (Z2a (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our usual practice is to keep articles on next scheduled elections. WP:CRYSTAL specifically names future elections as appropriate topics to cover. AusLondonder (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not much point in deleting it, if it will just get recreated in a few years time. G-13114 (talk) 08:47, 10 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleena lodhi haroon

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG. cited sources are not reliable enough. Saqib (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Lahore News is the only source that might be 3rd party coverage, but it still looks more to be a work by her than a work about her. Clearly a fashion video by the subject is not a source of notability. A fashion video created by others about the subject maybe, but not by the subject. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on secondary sources, not primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 May 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. Because of fewer participants. Although, it's leaning towards keep. Wouldn't object to a renomination if someone were to challenge the mentioned sources. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairtex Gym

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

Fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Household name, plenty of in-depth coverage e.g. Positioning Magazine, Manager Online, TAT Review & Hi-Class Magazine. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't access any of the articles mentioned by Paul_012, probably because of the security set up on my computer, but the existing article lacks the sources needed to meet WP:GNG. On the other hand, the Fairtex name is well known in Muay Thai circles, so it's quite possible coverage exists. Since I can't comment on the aforementioned sources, I'm not voting right now. Papaursa (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:39, 3 May 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; I don't think, don't think, TNT, just an observation. No formidable rationales are presented here, and due to that the article could possibly be renominated. We want some good reasons here at AfD, presenting notability guidelines and not opinions, 'I think', etc.. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^(c)}} 01:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Pakistan

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

Definitely not in compliance with WP:RAWDATA. Nuke it, and start over so the article can be remade as a more encyclopedic entry. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 10:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The other "33 seasons" were IP vandalism; undid that, leaving the one actual season. 62.219.99.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a history of loading Survivor pages with gobs of cruft (to the point it took me minutes to execute said undo). Nate • (chatter) 18:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrschimpf Can you find any other reliable sources to support the article? It is relying too heavily on primary sources. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 00:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think deletion (via WP:TNT) is the correct approach to dealing with article consistency or other issues. Whatever appears unsourced or unverifiable can just be removed by itself. Mar4d (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I found a contemporaneous source [22] which is enough to convince me this is not purely a work of fiction. I still don't think it's notable, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Alliance

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

Minor fictional element with no notability.The only reason it survived the first AfD is that Wikipedia is written by geeks (including myself), and we have inherent weakness for our geeky fiction. Sadly, now we also have rules on notability. Fortunately, we also have ficiton wikias (http://galactica.wikia.com/wiki/Eastern_alliance) so there's will be no loss when we delete it. Those days, people who want to learn about fiction trivia like this go to wikia anyway. PS. Yes, yes, existence of wikia is not an argument in AfD, just a side-comment; in case anyone has doubts my main concern is the total lack of notability displayed by this in-universe entry, and its total lack of significance or real world impact. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A rather minor element of the series, that was only a part of a very small handful of episodes. The article is mostly just plot, and there are almost no reliable sources discussing it in any way. The two books already included in the article as sources are pretty much it, and one of them (An analytical guide to television's Battlestar Galactica) is little more than a plot summary, and the other (Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy) just barely mentions them. Basically, the few, quoted passages that are in the "Reception" section of the article is the entire extent of sources that discuss the topic, which just simply is not enough to sustain an article. I was initially considering a redirect, but as it is such a generic name, I don't really think that's necessary. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met with sources already included in the article. Failing that, a merge might be appropriate but WP:ATD makes it perfectly clear that even if deemed non-notable, deletion is not an option when there is an appropriate merge target. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to discuss how GNG is provided by those sources? I find it doubious anyone would ever discuss the significance of this concept, those sources are almost certainly in-universe mentions in passing. No prejudice against merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per 64.183.45.226. There is simply not enough real content here to even merge. Also, I have removed all of the questionable sourcing, leaving just the two books as potential "real" sources... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per 64.183.45.226. Aoba47 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some more sources demonstrating notability... Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Mission Accomplished Or Mission Frakked Up?, An exploration of "SPACE: 1999" through the lens of fan fiction, Social History of the United States (10 volumes), Atomic culture: how we learned to stop worrying and love the bomb, An Analytical Guide to Television's Battlestar Galactica (Note that there are multiple mentions throughout this book, with varying levels of commentary). Obviously, the nominator is wrong when he suggests "I find it doubious anyone would ever discuss the significance of this concept". Science Fiction is fraught with symbolism, and in this case the Eastern Alliance has people analyzing it as a Soviet Bloc stand-in, as well as from an LDS theology perspective. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: I do appreciate your throughout research. But all we get is pretty much one-sentence for out-of-fictional-universe significance - that the "villainous Eastern Alliance is a thin-veiled surrogate for the "Eastern Bloc" countries of the Soviet Union". That's from the first source, all the others are just mentions in passing in the context of plot-summary. I am afraid one sentence about 'inspired by x' for real-world impact and significance is not enough of a threshold for stand-alone notability for a fictional plot element. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance participants: EEMIV (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), Casliber (talk · contribs), Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), Ryan4314 (talk · contribs), MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs), and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination claim of a "total lack of notability" is clearly false as there are several sources which discuss this as an allegory for the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact. Andrew D. (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: Great - could you cite your sources? I couldn't find any such references, beyond a single sentence that Jclemens found above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep referenced and there is no geek made, must delete rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<takei>Oh, my!</takei> Delete out of spite & seven-years-younger me was neither wrong nor obnoxious Oh, who am I kidding. Merge to main BSG series article, perhaps a section on commentary or criticism. The lack of follow-up discussion & action about merging or keeping or maintaining the article suggests ... well, nothing other than a niche, low-interest topic, whence it's reasonable to infer but insufficient to assert a lack of WP:GNG. There are a couple of third-party citations, but they look to be passing/fleeting mentions and not significant in depth or breadth of coverage. Still, if a few folks observe a real-world parallel between this and another bloc in the show, and given the relevance of that particularly in political climate of when the show was created, it'd be appropriate to snag those little tidbits, sneak them into the overarching article or section about BSG's real-world connections/relevance, and redirect to same (or dab it, since I'm sure there are other Eastern Alliances? Eastern Allii? out there). --EEMIV (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per available sourcability and allow expansion per Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy, Cinefantastique, Volume 35, Issues 1-6, The encyclopedia of TV science fiction, Sf-Worlds, and others avaiilable online and in libraries. Sorry, but simply saying something does "not belong" is not a valid deletion rational. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @MichaelQSchmidt: This is a discussion about Eastern Alliance, not Battlestar Galactica. Nobody is denying the show is notable, but in the sources you linked that I could access I couldn't see any non-trivial mention of the EA. If you could cite page numbers where it is discussed more than just in passing, or provide a quote - 2-3 sentences even, discussing its significance, etc. - it would be great. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it is a discussion of Eastern Alliance and its relationship to the notable topic Battlestar Galactica. Per discussion of the alliance as a major plot device in [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and some others, as with Adama, Starbuck, and Apollo if not kept I'd be fine with a proper merge to Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was hoping for new sources, but those are the very same ones cited above that I already analyzed - some of those are mentions in passing, some pure plot summaries. Not a single one calls EA a 'major plot device', this is purely your own view, I am afraid. Not that being a major plot device matters - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cylon War (2nd nomination) was likely bigger and it just got merged, because again, nobody could find anything except few mentions in passing and a ton of plot summaries. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Rename - a term used in a few episodes of a television show is not notable in the way it is presented here. It should be moved to Eastern Alliance (Battlestar Galactica) at a minimum, but probably just deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a fan of the show, but the sources given are passing mentions and do not amount to "significant coverage", and it's hard to see how coverage could ever exist. Most of the article could be into the episode lists or deleted outright. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a major element of the work of fiction, it has not received extensive critical commentary. Most of the critical references to it are simply passing references in plot summary. One source has been provided indicating it was inspired by the real world Eastern Bloc, but the commentary provided by that source is not extensive enough to base an article upon. SJK (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. Mentions of it's allegorical nature are not significant coverage. I agree that it is not a major element of the work of fiction, and does not meet the WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Star Trek characters (G–M). Compromise between keep and delete. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^(c)}} 01:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M'Ress

AfDs for this article:

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

I'd usually prod this, but since this is Star Trek, and would get deprodded for 99%, let's take this here. This is a character from the lowest-notability of Star Trek TV works, the animated series. The coverage seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I am unable to find any work discussing her significance; there are few short biographies in Star Trek compendiums (Terry J. Erdmann (23 September 2008). Star Trek 101: A Practical Guide to Who, What, Where, and Why. Simon and Schuster. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-1-4391-1787-3.) or fanpages but that's in-universe stuff. Not everything in Trek verse is notable, we habitually merge stuff like races into List of Star Trek races or List_of_Star_Trek_characters; not to look far, Koloth has about the same 3-4 sentences of an entry in the book I cite here, but he has been safely redirected to the character list. Unless someone can find a source discussing her significance in the real world, all we have is your average, non-notable, minor fictional character that fails WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We also see... Inquisitr, LA Review of Books, Inverse, Moviepilot, Trek Fail, a paper on minor trek characters. In summary, the possibility that this ST:The Animated Series character will be introduced in J.J. Abrams' world to replace Anton Yelchin's Chekov seems to have prompted a reasonable outpouring of RS coverage. Note that TAS has been off the air for over fourty years, and M'Ress still has plenty of 2016-2017 coverage, which is a pretty good demonstration of notability, even if the recent sources don't go into as much depth. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond this speculation, which merits one sentence, there is nothing else except in-universe biography for this character. I am afraid this is just not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek characters (G–M). None of the sources currently in the article are usable at all as reliable sources, and nothing else available, including the ones introduced by Jclemens above, are remotely close to being significant coverage. Nearly every source is nothing more than a sentence saying "this character existed in the animated series". There is no in-depth analysis of the character, nothing showing any real-world importance or influence, and nothing showing any real reception to the character. Only one of those sources speculates that the character might return in the reboot series to replace Chekov, and as there is no actual source beyond that hinting to that possibility at all, that seems like a very flimsy reasoning for claiming notability for the character. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Star Trek characters (G–M) per the comments from 64.183.45.226. Aoba47 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am totally fine with the merge (nominator). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The IP address' comments, and hence Aoba47's "me too" are essentially invalid, in that two of the sources (one book, the final paper) are paywalled. If a presumably reliable source is inaccessible, it is pretty difficult to conclusively say it's not important. Furthermore, the assertion that there is only one article around Yelchin's possible replacement with this character is inaccurate: I see at least six, but didn't feel the need to include all of them. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: I still do not see significant coverage on this character that would support having a separate article. Those six sources you linked are very weak. The Entertainment Weekly article only appears in the results as someone mentions the character in a comment and is thus invalid. The Trek Today "Retro Review" would be more appropriate for the episode articles in my opinion and their character's mention in the reviews are very minor. The lareviewofbooks source also does not provide much coverage on the character so I am not seeing much of an argument here. I still believe a merge and redirect is the best answer. I take issue with the comment on my opinion/agreement with above comments as "essentially invalid" as inappropriate as this should be a place of discussion and passing rather flippant judgement like that is not necessarily the best method of doing so. I just do not see any coverage outside of the fact that she appeared on the show and was discussed rather superficially as a possible replacement for Chekov; not a lot to fulfill notability in my opinion, but I would be more than happy to look through any other sources if you would like to list more (continued below).
Just to clarify my position even further, this is all that I see from the sources raised in this AfD: M'Ress is a character that appeared in Star Trek: The Animated Series and was voiced by Majet Barrett. The only reception that I have noticed is her being a cat woman and a joke about her potential to appeal to the furry crowd, and the only other attention to the character is again the rather superficial speculation on her appearance in future Star Trek media. I love articles on fictional characters and have worked on several in the past, and I think information on the character should be on the Wikipedia. However, I believe the information can be condensed down into a couple paragraphs in the pre-existing list of Star Trek characters as I do not see significant coverage to the point of keeping a separate article. If there is more about the creation and characterization of M'Ress or the reception of the character, then I would be more than happy to see it. I think we just have a difference in opinion on the "significant coverage" part of the policy on notability. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the characters page already suggested, open to reevaluating if discussion about the character's use in the next film to replace Chekov is put in the article. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 3 May 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) 22:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Ibáñez de Alba

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until some citations are found in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Ibáñez is a prolific inventor, to be sure, and as prolific a huckster. Almost all of the references are press releases promoting his latest invention, with little in the way of independent coverage to verify whether said inventions actually work or are in any way significant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:17, 8 May 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) 22:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Samples

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

Inadequately sourced blp that appears to fail pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable sources have ~~nothing~~ very little to say about this "legendary" porn "phenom." Porn trade press consists of the usual press releases and trivial mentions. She won a very obscure award at a fan festival, nowhere near satisfying WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

amended comment. A deeper search for reliable sources yielded trivial mentions, and a pointer to an interview in Adult Video News but nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails both the general notability guidelines and the pronographic performer specific guidelines. No show of notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 5 May 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 deleted . Materialscientist (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsory Registration Scheme

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

copied and pasted from http://india.ul.com/featured/indias-compulsory-registration-scheme-crs-for-electronic-products/ India1277 (talk) 05:35, 3 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political party control of United States state legislatures and governors

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

I'm not quite sure I get the purpose of this table. The data is all taken from a single source. No reason is given for only covering the period of 2009-present. The article lacks sufficient context to determine its purpose. I hate that my reasoning amounts to "unencyclopedic" but that's what this strikes me as. Wikipedia is not for listings of unexplained statistics. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

observationcan't make heads or tails of it, but can't bring myself to type the "D" word. Dloh cierekim 10:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe change the title to "Democrats lost a lot of seats during Obama administration". j/k. Not sure how to vote on this one. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CSD as test page. It's obviously incomplete and does not look readily improvable. Does not have much context and looks a little ORish. Creator has not edited the thing since Nov. 25, 2016 and has not edited at all since April 10, 2017. (narogers (talk · contribs)) Has not responded to our hail. Email not enabled. If creator returns and wishes to resume work, we can restore and userfy. If we just userfy now, it may again be tagged for deletion and the process resumed w/o resolution. Dloh cierekim 15:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page appears to be very similar to the data at Political party strength in U.S. states, except that page doesn't have separate historical data for upper vs. lower state houses. The subject is certainly notable, but without better sourcing it's hard to see a basis for keeping this nascent and unclear semi-fork. I guess a redirect could be considered under WP:CHEAP, but I don't have strong feelings about that either way. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the data at Political party strength in U.S. states#Historical party strength looks like what I think this table is sort of trying to be, only that data goes all the way back to 1938 for state legislatures and 1922 for governors. I think that longer data set is more useful and that article provides more context than the one in question here, which only goes back to 2009 and provides no context. The selection of 2009 as a starting date for this data smells fishy to me, but then again the source used for the data only goes back to 2009. At any rate, since this seems to be trying to do the same thing as Political party strength in U.S. states#Historical party strength I'd be fine with this being redirected there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The current page has no value, so WP:TNT. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding content fork to my deletion rationale.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:58, 11 May 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 Kosovo–Serbia relations#2013–present. As noted in the discussion, content has already been merged. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–Serbia January 2017 train incident

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

An incident with no long-term impact. Available coverage is along the lines of "Kosovo, Serbia Exchange Heated Words" and " Serbia and Kosovo were brought to 'the brink of conflict', according to Serbian president". Since the conflict did not occur, I don't see encyclopedic relevance here. This appears to have been a minor provocation of no lasting significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- per discussion below, I'm now proposing a redirect to Kosovo–Serbia_relations#2013.E2.80.93present where the appropriate content has been merged to. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, nothing actually happened, but I think this was more than a minor incident. I just think this is notable enough to put on Wikipedia. Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC) OK, merge it is. Ethanbas ^(talk) 05:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking merge somewhere, possibly a section on Kosovo–Serbia relations. This was one incident among many, followed by brouhaha in Serbian and Kosovo press, and some in international, but probably not of lasting significance for a standalone article, though it deserves a mention. And the article is currently a substub worth WP:TNT – if no one cared enough to write an article with more content than one useful sentence when it was ongoing, I don't predict anyone will later. No such user (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Yes, an incident happened, but nothing more came of it; end of story. However, while the incident might not merit a standalone article, the information should be included in an appropriate article, as suggested above. Drdpw (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I've merged the suitable content to Kosovo–Serbia_relations#2013.E2.80.93present; pls see diff. I'm thus proposing a redirect to the section mentioned. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that was the best target page, given recent sources, such a NYTimes article (Not an opinion piece, a reported article) Kosovo Feels Russia’s Heavy Hand, via Serbia, putting hit in a gorup with other Russion pressure on Kosovo [31].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Domdeparis (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Fazola

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and there seems to be no real claims to significance in the article. Concerning the sources one is a small Hungarian iron-working museum and the other is a web site dedicated to Hungarian metallurgy. I think we are a long way from proving notability and a search on the web turned up nothing of interest. Domdeparis (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm waffling here. The basis of a decent article is there. The subject was apparently a significant figure in metallurgy in his time and place, but there's no context given in the article to explain why that's important. The claims of notability are shaky, and Google Translate is an imperfect vehicle for evaluating either the content of the Hungarian sources or their reliability. (For instance, one source appears to be a personal web site. It might be written by an acknowledged expert, but I have no way of telling.) On the other hand, the article at hu.wp seems to be slightly more comprehensive, and there is related content at Commons that looks interesting. With some added context and additional sourcing, this could be exactly the sort of article about a once-important, now-obscure historical figure that Wikipedia should have. If no improvements are forthcoming, renomination for deletion should be considered. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 16:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment from what I can gather despite your weak keep you feel that if the article is not improved it should be nominated for deletion? Domdeparis (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't think there's any rush. It would be easier to build on what's already there than to start over from scratch or request undeletion later. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 03:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't understand your logic. If that were the way we looked at all articles none would be deleted on the off chance that someone at some time might find the sources necessary to prove notability. If he is not notable and there is nothing to prove that he was once-important historical figure as you say. There is nothing in the article that suggests he was anything more than a successful local artisan I really feel that there are not enough reliable sources to show that this person was an important enough figure to have his own page. The museum where he is just one of the people who are represented do not have their own wikipedia pages as far as I can see so I can't really see how they can be used as sources to prove the notability of one of the artisans that are exposed there. The sources are very very specialised and very local. Domdeparis (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my logic eludes you. There's an element of intuition involved, I suppose, but if you really want to know...on the rare occasion when I involve myself in AfD, I try to strike a reasonable balance between deletionism and inclusionism, but I'd prefer to err on the latter side when there's a hint of potential and there's no harm being done. I could have gone either way with this one, but I found no red flags suggesting that the article was misleading or erroneous. It occurred to me that the user who created it might check in, see the notice, and make some improvements. That's more likely to happen in, say, a month than in a week. If the decision here is to keep but no improvement happens, I'll be glad to !vote the other way. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 03:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created a month ago and was tagged by myself with a notability tag. Since it was created it has been modified 13 times by 5 different editors (not including myself and the creator) and no other sources were added. The creator is a SPA user that has made one contribution, creating this article, so it is unlikely that he will be back any time soon. I left the tag on in the hope that someone would find what I couldn't because I carried out a search and found nothing, I also did several translations of the sources to see if there was anything that had been missed to add to his notability, there was nothing. Did you do anything similaire before !voting keep? Or are you just using your intuition?Domdeparis (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar, I think you mean. I think you didn't read what I wrote very carefully or you wouldn't ask that that last question. I could, in turn, ask you if it's just intuition that persuades you it's unlikely that the article's creator (who is not necessarily a SPA, by the way—that term often carries negative connotations, and you can't possibly know this about the creator unless you're psychic) will return. But I won't ask you that. You nominated the article for deletion, I exercised due diligence in checking it out before I offered my opinion, and now it's up to a third party either to apply the mop or not. Further discussion here seems unlikely to clarify the question for that third party, but my talk page is this way if you'd like to take me to task or thank me for my good-faith contribution or whatever. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy-reading it's one of the problems that one encounters with spellcheck when one writes in 2 languages every day. As you say discussion is pointless as your due diligence turned up nothing else hence the use of intuition. An article doesn't have to be misleading or erroneous to be deleted but the sources have to prove notability and as you do not venture onto that terrain I can't discuss it any more and as you said in your first comment you are waffling and I don't know how to deal with that in a deletion discussion. Domdeparis (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep known for the Fazola gates and a number of other projects which are currently tourist sites and/or museum exhibits. A quick google search convinced me - which is hard to do on an 18th century figure (usually have to hit the books - and in this case potentially in Hungarian and German). Some online sources (I wouldn't dare use them in a seriously built article - need to use the sources behind the online sources): [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. This one is probably a serious source - [39]. Multiple google-books hits - [40] - many are tourist guides, but not all, and the tourist guides date back a bit. If someone has created monuments that are viewed by the public 200+ years later - they are notable. Probably need to hit Hungarian sources for even better coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary - He has a few major tourist/cultural sites - namely the "Fazola Gates" in Eger - [41], and the "Fazola Furnace" (which is also a musuem) - [42][43]. Seems there is also a lake named after him - [44]. Some of his work + statues of him (one is displayed in a square in Eger) can be seen here - [45]. There is an observatory he built - [46]. Busts of him elsewhere - [47]. In addition it seems there are a number of other architecture sites (e.g. [48]) and some other pieces displayed elsewhere. some relevant books (besides the godzillion guide books mentioning the sites!) - [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. It seems like Fazola is regarded as the "father figure" of Hungarian metalsmithing and is a renowned artisan. Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he was a pioneer in Hungarian industry, a street and school are also named after him. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in light of the sources pulled up by User:Icewhiz I will withdraw my nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 10:03, 4 May 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) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Clydesdale

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

Completing nomination per WP:AGF on behalf of Malbolgegloblam (talk · contribs), whose rationale (from this edit) was "Not a notable person. Made by the said individual (bedpan username). Half the citations don't work or are to their own pages." I have no real comment on the merits, except to note that the references do indeed appear to be lacking somewhat. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. It may be simply that the references are lacking, but in its current state this appears to fail WP:ARTIST as well as the more general benchmarks of WP:PEOPLE and general notability. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 16:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG simplest standards, no RS coverage on subject. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches are finding nothing; sources in article are local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 3 May 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. Given uncontested sources Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Piccadilly Rats

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

Fails notability. Further, the author has stated that he has a connection with the band as their manager, and despite a friendly note from me has refused to declare his COI and has accused me of tampering with that article on my talk page. Suggest deletion of this article, although the band manager (whos also the author of this article, by his own admission) means well, Wikipedia is not the place to publicize your band. Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ 14:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some source examples. Additional sources are available online. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fitzpatrick, Katie (27 July 2016). "Cult busking band Piccadilly Rats to perform their first festival". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
Abbit, Beth (17 April 2016). "The Piccadilly Rats took London by storm - here's the pictures to prove it". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved March 22, 2017.
Walters, Sarah (29 December 2016). "Piccadilly Rats star Ray Boddington WILL perform for Simon Cowell". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
Corner, Natalie (28 September 2015). "Legendary Manchester band appear on Judge Rinder over a mankini malfunction". Mirror. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
Abbit, Beth (13 March 2016). "Piccadilly Rats dancer Tommy Trouble injured after falling from float during Manchester Irish parade". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 22 March 2017.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There needs to be actual discussion for this to be deleted, if there is none, it will probably have to be closed as no consensus. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 13:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the last time to invite comments on the sources mentioned above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash^talk stalk 08:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was about to close this as no consensus due to lack of discussion and be done with it, but as it's just been relisted, I'll make my opinion official. Sources indicate local notability; in my opinion that's good enough. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:35, 10 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Cycles

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

promotional article for very small manufacturer. Forbes 30 under 30 is just one of 600 awards every year in various fields, and not a notable award. The NYT Ref is a review of about a dozen devices--this company's product is just one of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A promo page on a nn small business whose claim to fame is "embracing glow-in-the-dark paint" (?). Nothing encyclopedically relevant here. WP:TOOSOON for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I usually agree this type of articles are spam, but in this case I'd like to ask the nom (User:DGG) and User:K.e.coffman to comment on [54] and [55]. Not enough? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 2, Fox, is utterly useless. It says at the top: "We’re highlighting small businesses from around the country as nominated by you, our readers." , and what it means by highlight is letting the owner say whatever he chooses. Ref 1, Entrepreneur, is more substantial. But it says that "But Pure Fix Cycles, which brought in nearly $4 million in 2012, has positioned itself to become a big wheel in the bike biz" (That normally means, Not Yet Notable -- but it was written in 2013, and therefore does not rule out that have become notable since then.) Otherwise, the story is written as a PR piece with many hyperbolic quotes from the company founders. But it is an attempt at real journalism and Ive seen worse. Another like that might just do it. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew and no delete !votes are present. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alna Group

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

I don't see sufficient in-depth coverage to show that the company is notable. I found press releases, promo and/or routine coverage and trivial mentions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few of the citations are actual press releases, others are genuine media mentions. The article was "dumbed down" because of the previous moderator, who found parts of the text not suitable. You've deleted the other references and all of the awards and called that "cleaning up"? Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Computer company from times of the late USSR, this alone is a serious claim of notability. Maybe some Lithuanian editor could look into Lithuanian language media for better sources about this company? Pavlor (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It was formed in the times of the late USSR, but i don't see how is that not notable. Even 28 years later, it's still one of the biggest IT companies in the region, which is pretty notable, don't you think? It basically shaped the today's Baltic IT market for years, bringing key players like Microsoft NAV to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article, deleted a sentence and a reference, which might be considered as not useful. Added references from the Lithuanian government, another media outlet and a business magazine. So right now there is absolutely no information, that could be even remotely called out for marketing the company. The whole award section has been removed, there is only 1 external url (the official company website). The reference list currently consists of: biggest media outlets in the Baltics, independent business media outlets, official website of the Lithuanian government, website of the biggest media group in the Baltics, Alna Group official website. I followed every complaint from the moderators and improved the article time in time again to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The added sources are a list that doesn't mention the article subject (CIOReview), a press release (kt.gov.lt), and tv3.lt, which reads like a redressed press release. This is the type of material that I mentioned in the nom. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - kt.gov.lt is a press release by the government, not by the company. CIOReview is meant to solidify the information about Doclogix (which is a part of the Group), not the group itself. You can clearly see it by the reference placement. TV3 - it is not a press release. There were more diversified references in the Award section, but you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter who issued the press release; it is still a press release, which is not useful for determining notability. Judging from your response, you don't understand what types of sources contribute to notability vs ones used to source facts. Sources need to have significant discussion about the article subject (in addition to other factors, e.g. WP:RS) to contribute to notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added references on involvement in National Cyber Security, references provided by the Ministry of National Defence and CCDCOE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You've added a reference that merely lists the CEO as a member. This is not in-depth coverage of the company. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed those references as they are one-line listings and are about individuals within the company and not the company itself. Notability is not inherited. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Perhaps references exist in other languages that meet the criteria for establishing notability but so far, the ones we have do not. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning for a weak Keep. I don't like the article and I suspect the author may have an undisclosed COI, but I think the subject has enough coverage in Lithuanian language business media. It certainly has been one of the most prominent IT companies in Lithuania for 30 years. This article covers the company's history in detail, this and this cover the company's attempts to expand in other markets, this and this covers the company's change in business strategy, shifting from dependency on government contracts. Perhaps more interestingly and not covered in the article, 1 2 3 and 4 all cover various corruption allegations against the company, its owners and managers. Granted, not all the articles are very substantial, and there are blurred lines between PR releases and newspaper articles in Lithuanian press, but I think there is sufficient collective coverage for an article. And that's just a result of a quick search online. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that No longer a penguin. I've looked at each reference and my comments are below:

vz.lt article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as the article relies nearly completely on quotations from a company officer and is therefore a PRIMARY source which cannot be used to establish notability.
Next vz.lt article also relies completely on quotations from a company officer and therefore also fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
delfi.it article fails for the same reason as the previous two. It relies completely on quotations from a company officer.
this vz.lt article is a premium article and I cannot access the full content. I cannot therefore determine if this article meets the criteria for establishing notability.
15min.lt article is a Press Release and fails WP:ORGIND as it is company produced
ve.lt article is primarily about a scandal that involves Alna as a beneficiary in a fraud and also directly involves one of Alna's major shareholders. The article uses extensive quotes from the major shareholder but the information provided in relation to Alna does not appear in those quotations. Also, this is more than a tangential mention. As such I believe this source meets the criteria.
This alfa.lt article is also commented on the scandal and mentions the involvement of Alna. I believe this source meets the criteria.
This vz.lt article is very short, more like a news bulletin but it mentions Alna. In my opinion, this is not enough to establish notability as it is a "passing mention".
this vz.lt also comments on the scandal and in my opinion meets the criteria to establish notability.

There are at least 2 suitable sources and that's enough to pass notability. I've struck my previous !vote and change it to Keep. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected a small mistake (corrpution to corruption). Although I'm not sure that two stories, almost 15 years apart, one of which was in the heat of an election, with no further commentary from the authorities could be called "corruption since 2001" and the company itself "mired in corruption", what's your take on this? In the cited article of 2016 the allegations are not for Alna, but rather for the Director of the National Centre of Registers. This is the article you were looking for at vz.lt 15min.lt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. While I'm not completely convinced by the sources provided, it is likely that there are further Lithuanian/offline sources that would be sufficient to demonstrate notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 11 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Today

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

"Entertainment Today" is not mentioned by any third party sources, much less with any significant coverage, and therefore does not meet WP:Notability. 220.246.180.6 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

created for IP after request at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#IP_nomination_of_AfD using rationale at Talk:Entertainment Today#Proposed AfD - ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 15:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find coverage to demonstrate that this publication/site meets our notability guidelines. Gongshow talk 08:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the subject meets GNG. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Conroy

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

Local independent ball player who doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. WP:BLP1E applies as the coverage only applies to his sexuality and not his playing achievements. Prevan (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as third-party sources could be incorporated, I feel this article discusses a notable subject worth keeping.TH1980 (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Sports Illustrated source establishes his notoriety. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides appropriate reliable and verifiable sources about him as an individual that establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the other third party sources, he gets quite a bit of coverage in this book. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 10 May 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) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lidia Buryak

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Part of a series of related promotional articles by the same editor, which included DEM4 Laboratory and Bio-In. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The article can't be sourced as there're no publications about the person. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be of the same promotional pool of articles as the other two that I nominated for deletion. As far as I can tell, the only sources on this person are a few lines that she did, in fact, participate in a party. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:22, 9 May 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 03:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMonster

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. All coverage is primary or WP:ROUTINE. Nikki♥311 02:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 02:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 02:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 02:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nikki. No notable pro wrestling event. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage that shows WP:GNG is met. There's also nothing to show this has the signficance to meet WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. There are valid concerns that this might be part of a bad-faith AfD-ing. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robinett

AfDs for this article:

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

unremarkable YouTube personality Mjbmr (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom hasn’t given proper rationale to delete this, or any, article. The subjected "unremarkable YouTube personality" opinion is noted, but it has nothing to do with WP's notability standards. This topic has received in-depth significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, internationally no less, spanning many years. [56], [57][58] (called a “YouTube All-Star") by the Chicago Tribune) There are more, like a very in-depth piece specifically about Robinett from the German Berliner Zeitung, but they seemed to have taken it offline. Still counts though. --Oakshade (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tufnell, Nicholas (2013-11-27). "The rise and fall of YouTubes celebrity pioneers". Wired UK. Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  The article notes:
  
  Paul Robinett -- one of YouTube's first celebrities -- began his YouTube career posting videos as "Renetto", a bizarre and sometimes grotesque character he created to amuse his business partner at the time. Within days Paul was featured on the front page, having amassed hundreds of thousands of views. A later success was his "Diet Coke and Mentos" video, currently standing at 14 million views, in which he suggested he was seriously injured by ingesting large amounts of Coke and Mentos (an American sweet).
  Although these videos amused Paul, he soon realised he was wasting the potential to turn this platform into something more constructive, so he retired his Renetto character and began engaging with his audience.
  ...
  Paul began receiving offers from TV shows, but he rejected them on the grounds that he had the potential to get higher viewing figures than Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart put together, "I got the fuckin' internet!" he screams over Skype. For Paul, it's the intimacy and authenticity that YouTube offered that made it so attractive to viewers.Whilst he admitted that the overall quality might not be as good, the authenticity was a key attraction: "Thanks to YouTube, you know me, so who the fuck do you want to get your news from?! BOOM. DONE. REVOLUTION."
2. Tedeschi, Bob (2007-02-26). "New Hot Properties: YouTube Celebrities". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  The article notes:
  
  I think everybody that has a site has contacted me,” said Paul Robinett, whose YouTube persona Renetto has attracted 1.19 million views and more than 23,000 subscribers. Mr. Robinett, who is based in Columbus, Ohio, and frequently posts commentaries on YouTube-related issues, said: ...
  ...
  But Mr. Robinett said he was contacted by a talent agency claiming YouTube plans to share about 20 percent of the advertising money gleaned from each video clip with the clip’s producer. Mr. Robinett said he could not confirm that claim with a YouTube executive.
  ...
  That is what Mr. Robinett, a k a Renetto, is hoping. Mr. Robinett recently posted a video chastising YouTube stars who have bolted to other sites. He said the video was tongue in cheek, though many in the YouTube community missed the joke.
3. "Renetto: Der 39jährige Paul Robinett aus Ohio treibt das wohl undurchschaubarste Spiel mit Kategorien wie Authentizität und Inszenierung auf Youtube". Der Spiegel (in German). 2006-09-07. Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
4. Pamperrien, Von Sabine (2008-07-12). "Paul Robinett ist auf Youtube berühmt. Dort heißt er Renetto und kämpft für eine bessere Welt Ein Träumer". Berliner Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  The article notes:
  
  Paul Robinett ist eine Youtube-Berühmtheit. Als Renetto zählt er zu den 100 bekanntesten Menschen auf Youtube. Im wahren Leben ist der 41-Jährige Erfinder von transportablen Hängematten und Strandstühlen sowie eines Fortbewegungsmittels, dessen Konstruktion sämtliche bisher bekannten physikalischen Regeln zu widerlegen scheint. Eigentlich müsste der Stiel mit zwei Rädern ständig umkippen. Tut er aber nicht. Berühmt wurde Robinett aber nicht durch seine technischen Innovationen. Er ist ein Youtube-Evangelist. Ein Verkünder. Aber von was?Renetto veröffentliche am 7. Juli 2006 sein erstes Video. Ein wohlgenährter Enddreißiger mit schütterem Haar, an dem irgendwie alles rund erscheint, ohne fett zu wirken, erzählt mit verstellter Stimme, warum er nicht mehr länger nur fremde Videos anschaut und kommentiert, sondern auch eigene Videos veröffentlicht. Es ist nicht ganz klar, ob er den chinesischen Koch aus der Kultserie "Bonanza" nachahmt oder die Fistelstimme des Schriftstellers Truman Capote. Seine riesigen, runden Augen mit den langen Wimpern schauen dabei wie die von Altkanzler Kohl. Renetto ruft zum Mitmachen bei Youtube auf.
  From Google Translate:
  Paul Robinett is a youtube celebrity. Renetto is one of the 100 best known people on Youtube. In real life, the 41-year-old is the inventor of transportable hanging mats and beach chairs, as well as a means of transport, the construction of which seems to disprove all known physical rules. Actually, the handle with two wheels would always have to tip over. But he does not. But Robinett was not famous for his technical innovations. He is a Youtube evangelist. A herald. But from what? Renetto will release his first video on July 7, 2006. A well-nourished end-thirties with thin hair, somehow appearing all around without looking fat, tells in a disguised voice why he no longer only looks at foreign videos and comments, but also publishes his own videos. It is not quite clear whether he imitates the Chinese cook from the cult series "Bonanza", or the falsetto of the writer Truman Capote. His huge round eyes with long lashes look like those of old Chancellor Kohl. Renetto calls for participation in Youtube.
5. Masterson, Kathryn (2006-10-13). "YouTube all-stars". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-05-03. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  The article notes:
  
  Paul "Renetto" Robinett, 39
  Canal Winchester, Ohio
  Four months after starting to post videos on YouTube, Paul Robinett--known on Web as Renetto, a Moby-looking bald guy with thick black glasses--was recognized in the real world.
  Several people browsing Robinett's Ohio candle store last week asked the 39 year old if he was Renetto from YouTube. He said yes--then promptly made a video about it.
  Robinett is a frequent contributor to YouTube, posting daily. The father of four gets anywhere from 10,000 to 300,000 views per video, though a clip of him eating Mentos, drinking Diet Coke and spitting it all up got more than 2 million.
  ...
  The path to becoming an Internet celebrity was accidental, Robinett says. He was surfing on YouTube with a new MacBook Pro and decided to try it himself. Using the camera in the laptop, he made a video in the character of Renetto, who speaks in a nasally voice. Soon, Robinett was posting more. He's put his family online (including his kids and his dad when he forgot to pick up Robinett from the airport) and stood on his roof to protest world poverty. That was requested by an ad agency, Robinett said.
6. Hjorth, Larissa; Horst, Heather; Galloway, Anne; Bell, Genevieve, eds. (2017). The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography. New York: Routledge. p. 325. ISBN 131737777X. Retrieved 2017-05-03.
  The book notes:
  
  When a video is created, the video creator often dominates media discourses and scholarly analysis. For example, early vloggers such as Paul Robinett (known as "renetto" on YouTube) and Bryony Matthewman ("Paperlilies") have rightly been profiled as instrumental for helping YouTube's early success. Their imaginative vlogs about their lives have sometimes received millions of views, and they were active in promoting community in YouTube's early years. Yet, when asked to reflect on their participation, they identify a range of video creation pressures they felt as YouTube became increasingly commercial. Google's acquisition of the site in 2006, the addition of YouTube's partner program, and increased advertising revenues from ads placed on videos were forces that they say complicated their individual video making process. Robinett was quoted as feeling uncomfortable about financially benefitting from the YouTube community that was forming in the site's early years (Tufnell 2013).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Paul Robinett to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As noted by BigHaz in this other AfD, this might be part of a bad-faith multiple AfD effort. --Oakshade (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I don't like to assume, I think that's a good catch. Looking at the nominator's Talk page archives, there's a pattern of behaviour here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:58, 3 May 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 03:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bonifer

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

Notability is not really established here. The creator of the article has the username "Bonifer", which appears to be a conflict of interest. Evking22 (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like it's self-published, date of birth jumps out (twice), fails WP:GNG simplest standards for notoriety on so many levels...Cllgbksr (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. A search for reliable secondary sources yielded just a few one-sentence mentions in various publications. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems like it is for promotional use. The article lacks reliable sources. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 7 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Knight (developer)

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

Please excuse sloppiness in my analysis or edits as I'm a neophyte at editing in Wikipedia, having only edited entries dealing with Lewiston, Maine, and the Agora Grand Event Center, both of which I have a close connection to, thus a COI. I am a "newbie" and hope to continue learning about the editing process to continue contributing on a wider range of topics.

This article was tagged for proposed deletion by editor Namiba because "No sources cover Knight in detail." However, I think this is irrelevant, as the question is whether reliable sources support the assertions about Knight. In other words, I believe notability is not a question of how detailed sources are, but whether the sources support the assertions that make the person notable. I think a second question here is whether those assertions make Knight notable.

As for the first question (sources supporting the assertions), there are several sources listed that support the assertions that: the building in question is Maine's tallest; that Knight owns the building; and that the tallest buildings of other states are not owned by individuals. However, the assertion that "Knight is the only person who individually owns the tallest building in a state" is not explicitly stated by any reliable source and therefore may represent synthesis of published material, violating NOR.

As for the second question (notability), if the synthesized statement that Knight is the only person who individually owns the tallest building in a state must be deleted as original research, then is Knight notable by nature of owning Maine's tallest building? I don't know the answer, which is why I've nominated this article for deletion and hope to get experienced editor feedback and consensus! Afknight (talk) 02:15, 3 May 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 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Redirect to the building; seems the obvious solution (that article needs some cleanup, but the building is notable). DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The building Knight owns may be the tallest structure in Maine, but he had no connection with it being built, he just happens to be the current owner. It is a 220-foot-tall former church, which might be a notable building (although the article on it is overly promotional), but that is by no means enough to make its owner notable. This is not at all a tall building, the lists Wikipedia has on this matter are lacking, with most states instead being covered by a list for one city. Still while this is somewhat tall for a Church structurally, although how useful in height count unused interior small steeple areas can be is probably debatable, As early as 1854 the tallest building in Chicago was a Church that is 25 feet taller. It was then replaced by a Church that is 70 feel taller. There is nothing particularly notable in the height of the building, and even less notable about Knight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can only find promotional pieces on Google about the hotel with nothing about Knight. Fails WP:BIO. Rogermx (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 7 May 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) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enock Poulsen

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

Non-notable boxer that fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Coverage in secondary sources is routine coverage of matches in a boxing specific magazine. Other than that, I can't find anything that would get him close to GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet the notability criteria for boxers and lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination, as it is clear that there is as much of a chance of this article being deleted as snowball making it through Hell. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alva Garey

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

Fails POLOUTCOMES. There is no further information online, so it can't be expanded. It is all ROUTINE, like database reports, genealogies, censuses, congressional registries, and Wisconsin logs. Also found were unrelated individuals named "Alva Garey". Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coin flip on delete/keep. Found reference to him on Google that confirms he was a 15th district WI Senator. Can't determine if source is reliable. [59] Cllgbksr (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State legislators are notable; the Wisconsin Blue Book is published by the state of Wisconsin and is a reliable source. Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alva Garey meets, in my view, WP:POLITICIAN. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the sources confirming his statewide elected office, he's notable. Alansohn (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State senators pass the notability guidelines for politicians. Also the claim "There is no further information online, so it can't be expanded" is just plain near sighted. Sources do not need to be online to be used. While for some purposes old newspaper sources are discouraged, to show the notability of politicians, such newspaper sources are workable. I am sure there were newspapers somewhere in Wisconsin in the 1920s that spoke of Alva Garey. I am not sure that any of such newspapers still exist, but suspect they would be findable. It would take some work, but could be done. I would like it if we could say more about Garey's time in the state senate, but he is clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment: Guys, a lot of the coverage is from primary sources. WP:BASIC says that doesn't count.--Mr. Guye (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:POLITICIAN is a guideline that describes when an individual should be afforded presumption of notability because of the expectation that coverage exists. It is the view of the community that there is an expectation that state legislators would meet WP:GNG. In addition, WP:PRIMARY is not a blanket prohibition on the use of or sole reliance on primary sources. Instead, the policy clearly states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source." All that is needed is some verification that the individual served as a state legislator (which could be verified through election results, entry on the website [or archive] from the office they served, official minutes, roll call votes, or other official source that indicates their title. --Enos733 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 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 Conker (series). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conker's Other Bad Fur Day

(Find video game sources: "Conker's Other Bad Fur Day" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This article, which has no properly formatted references, is nearly incomprehensible. It states that there is very little information, and there is not enough intelligible information to warrant an article about whatever. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Conker (series), where it's mentioned briefly (and more coherently). If an article about this cancelled game can be carved out into a stand-alone article, this attempt surely didn't prove it possible. Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Conker (series) not notable in own right, no WP:RS KylieTastic (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conker (series) it isn't notable but I don't think it needs a deletion. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conker (series), while some cancelled games have enough coverage to warrant a separate article this is not one of them.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Conker (series). Fails WP:GNG. Coverage from reliable video game sources on this topic is extremely sparse with only a few mentions. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Conker (series). Not notable enough for an article, but would be a good addition the the Conker (series) article. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 7 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening the High Frontier: Our Future in Space

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

No evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources found via Google (only 15 hits total for a search on the title). The review linked from the article is on one person's personal website. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Largoplazo (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be independently reviewed at least twice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I see only the one review on a personal website. Largoplazo (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate notability. Personal essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep As the person who created the article I am unsure if it is appropriate for me to vote. If it is, this is my vote. Also, please note I have added another link to a second book review on this book in the external links. I have also been informed by someone I know at the National Space Society that they are also working on a book review for this book. I will add a link to this new review as soon as it comes out on the NSS website. Jonah and the Whale (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is appropriate and it's recommended people identify themselves when they are the article creator, which you have done. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BK Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notoriety at the simplest of WP standards. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still have a copy of The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, but this follow-up doesn't have a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NBOOK. Cited reviews are a personal web site and a blog. — JFG ^talk 12:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alas Islands

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

Alas, this is a very minor detail of a W. Somerset Maugham short story. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (snowball). The Alas Islands are small but real, as a web search will easily prove; for example see here or search at the U.S. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. When I created the article in 2005, I included the latitude and longitude, which are easily verified. The article claims that they are fictitious; this should be corrected. —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the article to a correct version. —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, now that the real islands have been restored. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 3 May 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Cunningham

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

not notable, unsourced -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to see if she meets WP:NACTOR. Does she have significant roles in multiple notable films? I don't think she does in A Taste of Honey, The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With The Sea, or The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie: you'd expect significant roles to be mentioned in reviews or other discussions of the work. She did have a major role in the 1980s Thames TV series Gems, but it doesn't currently have a WP article and doesn't have many sources discussing it (arguably any series on a major TV network with 120 episodes is notable). Maybe she is notable for her stage work? Maybe there are sources in old newspapers. Till then, deletion looms. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i'll withdraw if you can find something more than minor roles to meet WP:NACTOR -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She does have 33 IMDB credits, including some notable films. PatGallacher (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
but are they significant roles? WP:NACTOR lays out the notability guidelines for actors... which she does not meet, near as I can see. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gems (TV series) was written a few days before the start of this discussion. Fuebaey (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment we should redirect to Gems (TV series) if it does get deleted, i think -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. As she has had parts in many productions, I would say a redirect to Gems could confuse readers. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 7 May 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) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Madsen

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

Non-notable boxer who has no evidence of passing either WP:NBOXING and WP:GNG. Upon searching for sourcing, the Gnews results appear to be about other people with the same name, and the sources found don't meet our inclusion guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing that shows he meets WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A rationale for deletion or redirection is absent; the nominator is only proposing a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswathi Rajamani

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

merge into Adrishya. not notable on own -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:59, 3 May 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick's Original Big Train Bar

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

not notable -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw meets gng -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD. Below are some source examples. The article would benefit from copy editing to add sources and for cohesion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

A Guide to the Historic Shops & Restaurants of New Orleans. New York Review of Books. pp. 100–101.
"Big Train in the Big Easy". Imbibe.
"To revive Nick’s on Tulane, rethinking a legendary lost night spot". New Orleans Advocate.
"Black Velvet Smash". New Orleans Magazine. (subscription required)
In the Land of Cocktails. Harper Collins. p. 9. Quote: "Nick Castrogiovanni's Big Train Bar was a serious dive even by New Orleans standards. Each successive generation, including ours, thought they discovered it, and were always surprised to learn that their parents had been there before them." (subscription required)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Pattillo

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

non-notable BLP. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a personal fan of Rooster Teeth, I'd like to see this article. However, I can see that he hasn't really done any notable work outside of Rooster Teeth/ Achievement Hunter. PUNKMINKIS (CHAT) 12:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 7 May 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. with no comment on any possible merge. SpinningSpark 12:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SRF Airspace monitoring and management system

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It was the first Air Sureilane system of the Swiss Air Force after WW2, at his time it was one of the modernst systems. It is mentoned in books and also in the swiss Air force Museum. "Fail WP GNG " is just to cover up the hunt from The Banner against Swiss Military topics i worked on.FFA P-16 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be aware that your continuous string of personal attacks is completely useless as the subjects are judged on their merits and not on your roaring! The Banner talk 19:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The long list of deletion Nominations from you against articels I had writen or worked on shows that YOU continuous missuse AfD. It is important that people know aboud this!FFA P-16 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The number of articles deleted shows otherwise. Please stop your personal attacks. The Banner talk 20:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No the number of from you nominated articels i had written (especaly about the Divison General) shows exactly that it is not about GNG and raves a clear picture that you use AfD's as personal attacks. So topi it Now! Very interesting is that ther is now a long line of AfD s from you against articels from me..it is no coincidence that you now drag FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system and SRF Airspace monitoring and management systemto AfD after they exist already 4 years with "Fail WP GNG" at the same time put no other radar system who was not written from me in question (like Austrian air defense or French air defence radar systems) who's WP GNG is even weaker.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Swiss_Air_Force#Air_defence or similar location (related to history of Swiss air defences). This is notable as the first system in use - but unless I'm missing something, unlike the concurrent FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system AfD (where I voted Keep) which is actually a complex tailor made system, in this case we are talking about the deployment of 4 purchased Thompson ER-200 S-band radars and not an actual system beyond this. The article is well written, sourcing is a bit scant (but does exist - it doesn't fail on lack of sources), but I'm not sure this should stand as a stand-alone article and not as a section titled "early air defense systems" or something similar in the relevant force.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively merge to FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system as a description of the previous system. I think the content here is good - just not standalone - don't have a strong opinion on where to merge to.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not offering an opinion as to the notability of the subject at this time - I will do so when I have looked at it more thoroughly - but it appears to me that the text might be a copyright violation from somewhere else, as there aren't enough mistakes for the text to be the original work of the article's creator FFA P-16. YSSYguy (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's unkind. Note Earwig's copyvio tool doesn't show anything clearly obvious - [60], and the article itself (as per its history) had undergone some copy-editing.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked carefully at the history before making the above comment and the copyediting was not so extensive as to account for the difference between what FFA has typed in the article and the gibberish he has posted here - perhaps he copied the text from a book or from a placard in the museum. YSSYguy (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FLORIDA Airspace monitoring and management system (as the successor). The latter article seems to be heading towards a "Keep". Can be briefly mentioned there, while anything useful can be picked up from the article history. Otherwise, this is right now an unsourced original research / WP:MANUAL. There's very little encyclopedic prose in it right now. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REname and repurpose as History of Swiss Air Defence. This article will make one section. The FLORIDA system (some one's merge target) will make another. For all I know there may be an intervening one. These will together make a main article for Swiss_Air_Force#Air_defence. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. FFA touts the book about the centenary of the Swiss Air Force, but when he added the book to the article as a 'reference' he added absolutely no text, which indicates that - even though he is fighting for the life of the article - it doesn't have anything to add to what is already in it; said text boiling down to "Swiss Air Force wanted radar, did some testing, and bought some units off-the-shelf". YSSYguy (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for more references.. I brougth 1 more references for the text who is already writen.. so with just a other referencs for the already existing is no need to rewrite the text.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't ask for anything, but thanks for reinforcing my point that the book does not help to establish notability because there isn't anything in it that isn't already in the article. YSSYguy (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ther is no rule in Wikipedia that if you bring in tow differend Books as referenc about one topic that this two books must contain differend informations.. Also if the second one doesn't bring something new it is a referenc of GNG. Also you can not buy an airspace monitoring and management system for a topogarphie like in Switzerland " off-the-shelf".. definitive also not in 1952. Also this is now an old trick from you putting references in question.. Last time by the Bucher aircraft tug, you told me you will accept the ref I add and change your delet into keep if I bring in new informations in the article from the new source... I had brought in this new Infos (Transportation of the Bucher aircraft tug and its use at ad -hoc highway strips).. But you had not changed your vote.... Notability doesent is to have differend informations in differend books.. the same informations in differend books is also prove of notability.FFA P-16 (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you keep demonstrating in all of these different AfD discussions, is that you do not understand what Wikipedia's notability requirements are. It does not matter if this radar system is discussed in 300 books, if all of them have only the same one or two sentences of information. Having 300 books mentioning the subject satisfies the requirement for widespread coverage, but not the requirement for significant coverage if all of them have only the same one or two sentences of information. You do not do yourself any favours in the way you add material to articles either. As I and others have pointed out to you many times, you need to reference properly - just tacking on a list at the bottom of the article is not a satisfactory way to reference the information in the article. Let us say for the sake of argument that the book by Wüst has ten pages of coverage of the SRF radar - or is it SFR, as both are used in the article. I would expect to see in the list of references which information is on each of those ten pages. You often don't (or can't) do that when you add sources to articles and I can't 'take your word for it' as to how much is referenced from where because you have a track record of adding information to articles derived from "what you know to be true" and then claiming notability - for example you created the 'article' Swiss Military Tarpaulins and argued that it should be kept . YSSYguy (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it is already straing to put the notability of an nationalwide Air surveillance system in the center of Europe douring the cold war in question. Profe of notabiliety is given in the Museum and the Books. Jou just come around with something new just because you wan't it deleted. The Refernces ar given. Ther is no need to copy the book as referene page by page. Also again, last time when I add he book at the bucher Aircraft tug you played the same game, first discredit the book, then you said you will change your delet to keep if I build in more infos from the book into the text.. I had done this but you broke your promise! So if I add her references which information is on each of those ten pages. what will happened then? I can't 'take your word for it' too. It is easy to deny all references if you want to delete an article. of cors I wote keep for the Swiss Military Tarpaulins. Whatz are you expecting? that someone write an arrticel to vote for delet? also it meet's the criterias for german Wikipedia, voting for deletion and nominating something for deletion is not much work and very easy.. bring in references, writing about it is much more work.. and I have no time in the next week to serv you everything on the silver tablet.FFA P-16 (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your info: this is the English-language Wikipedia, so you have to adhere to the rules and regulation valid on this project. The Banner talk 16:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here some online, with them GNG is given:

SFR ER220 in "Militärische Dänkmäler im Bereich Luftwaffe". Page 13 &14
" Zur Geschichte der Radarüberwachung in der Schweiz" 16. januar 2017 de:Walter Dürig (Offizier) Pages 2-5
"Gespräch mit Alfons Haltmeier" 13.september 2013 Walter Dürig Picture of the System on Mount Pilatus (LO) on Page 6
Einsatzzentralen der Luftwaffe 23.Juni 2015 Oberst (aD) Rudolf Wiki , Hinwil Page 27-30

FFA P-16 - I'm not contesting there is source material here. But why not merge to project FLORIDA and/or to history of Swiss air defenses? Why should this be a standalone article?Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because This one, the FLORIDA and now the FLORAKO are 3 differend air surveilance systems from differend manufacturer and from differend times.. Merge them would be like (I knew its an extrem example) Merge Dassault Mystère with F-101 and F-16.FFA P-16 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FLORIDA & FLORAKO clearly are elaborate custom made systems - deserving of a separate article. However the SRF system - from what I understand from the article - is 4 off the shelf Thompson ER-200 radars - with little C4ISTAR beyond this. Why would one characterize this a system?Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well merging would squees it into a part who is (at the moment) only a short statement about the today system. Yes the Finland Air defense also had Thompson Er-200 radars.. But you can not just buy 4 off the shelf radars and put them in an mountain georaphie.. you have to customize them. Also the page 27-30 Air defense and directions center in Mount Brünig made it to an forrunner system of the FLORIDA. But if you think tis is not important enoug..i prefere the merge than the loss of the informations.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid my German isn't good enough to really understand the sources (I can make out every second or third word in German - so I can tell what this is about, but not enough to really understand). I think the content itself in the article is good (proofing issues aside). For me it is a question of whether this is a system, or "History of Swiss Air defense". If the article were to assert the customization of the system (e.g. - how the four ER-220 (or 200?) radars were integrated via C3) - then I would perhaps see this is a system. Mountains and echoes are an issue for any radar deployment - requires calibration, and with large obstructions - require multiple sites for full coverage (of obscured zones from one radar) - however does this make a system? What integrated these radars? A common command post with telephone lines from the operators in each site - or something more elaborate? Was a "common air picture" constructed (either electronically or even manually via sandbox with humans managing the tracks and integration)? This is what is missing for me - when I read the article I see some history, some descriptions of problems and issues - and then a system description that consists of 4 fixed radars + 1 mobile one (some of the sources you pointed out seem to refer to 5 mobile units in addition to the fixed - but I might not understand this) - with no description of a C&C function. Was this system static in configuration? Or did the composition of radars change throughout the life (until FLORIDA)? From my knowledge of non-Swiss forces, this can be quite fluid (so and so radars in stock - particularly mobile or semi-mobile ones - deployed ad-hoc as per inventory in various locations) and vary from one year to the next.Icewhiz (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a pity that this infos are only in german. Unfortunatly I don't have much time now, and probabl not beeing able to work on wiipedia the next 5 days. So onl a short answer. In [61] is written that they build the Underground EZ-KP in Mount Brünig for this system (Pic on page 30) In this documend the write that ther weher 4 fixed Radarsites on the Mountains (Pic on page 28), a fixed testside at Bütschelegg and a Fixed trainingside at Dübendorf.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To assert significance of this as a system - you will have to describe Einsatzzentrale KP in Mount Brünig. Unfortunately this PDF isn't even text (is photocopy) - so I can't copy paste to translate (so I'm stuck with my rather poor German).... But it does seem to describe a central command center (and the photograph does seem to show one - with electronic displays from all 4 radar systems). The central command (or distributed - what matters is integrating the disparate views from specific radar systems into a unified view), if it is developed, is what distinguishes a system - from a random collection of radars. If you develop this in the article (with proper sourcing / attribution) - I will change my vote.Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Icewhiz, sorry, I am also not able to copy the thest of this photo PDf, so i can also not use it on google translate. But I have used it as ref and add a text that the system had a underground Commando center inside Mt. Brünig. also I aad a link to some B/W phots abut Swiss air Force Radars..on this external link are also a few Pictures from the system.B/W Pictures of the SRF-Radar ER-220 System. FFA P-16 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep due to improved sourcing and description of underground command center.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first three of those four extra sources are copies of Swiss military internal documents, so they do nothing to establish notability. The fourth is independent, but I will offer no opinion on whether it constitutes in-depth coverage until after I read it. YSSYguy (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No they are NOT copies of Swiss military internal documents! Written in 2013, 2015, 2017 about a System from the 1950's-70's is definitiv not a copy of Swiss military "internal" documents. They show clearly notability. Again You break your promise..(like after I add more Text to the Bucher Flugzeugschlepper Article).. Here I add more very good references with good & detailed informations about the topic of this articel, and i brought in the new informations into the text....FFA P-16 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the first is a document of a Swiss government department responsible for aspects of the Swiss military and the other two are documents of the Flieger- & Fliegerabwehrtruppen, which is the Swiss Air Force, is it not? So, not independent sources. Your 'article' about the aircraft tug was along the lines of "The ACME potato masher is a potato masher used by the Swiss Air Force. It can be used to mash all of the potatoes that the Swiss Air Force purchases, including Pink Eye, Kennebec and Idaho potatoes. It is used in all kitchens at bases of the Swiss Air Force"; then your added text that you keep complaining that I 'broke my promise' about amounted effectively to "It can also be used to mash potatoes when the Swiss Air Force operates away from its bases"; once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of notability in the WP environment. YSSYguy (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. The first Document is from Armasuisse not from the Swiss Air Force. The second two no it is not From the Swiss Air Force this documents are writen in 2013 -2017 and in this time it is Just Swiss Air Force and not Flieger- & Fliegerabwehrtruppen. Walter Dürig wrote this in 2013 and 2017 but he was retiredas Commander of the Swiss Air Force in ons 31. Dezember 1989. And by Mr. Wiki Oberst (aD) = (aD) = ausser Dienst = in german a therm for retierd Military personal. This are independent sources. These endless attempts to discredit sources must end now. No I never ever had writen something about potato masher! You told me you will change your delet vote to a keep if I add more text/infos about the Bucher. I had add this about his fast transportability and about his use on ad-hoc missions on highways who where used as war time runways..This is definitely something that does not apply to all aircraft tractors.FFA P-16 (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I had made a mistake about the first document being from the air force, it is a document of the government department responsible for the Swiss military, the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport, so not independent. As for the second and third, are they from the Flieger- & Fliegerabwehrtruppen or are they self-published documents from Walter Dürig? Once again your comment about the tug shows your lack of understanding - of notability and of analogy as well. Why would I have changed my opinion over the extra material? The use of stretches of road as emergency runways might be notable, but that does not in any way mean that the use of a tug to move aircraft on those stretches of road would make the tug notable. YSSYguy (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is still NOT from the Air Force so it is interpendent. No the are NOt fromthe Air Force. Again they are written in 2013-2017. In this time is no "Flieger- & Fliegerabwehrtruppen".. The "Flieger- & Fliegerabwehrtruppen" was the name back in the time when Dürig was active Commander, so it makes sens that he use this.. Oh.. because it is from Dürig It does not count.. so every thing written by someone who had oce or is working in the topic about he write does not count? That is absolut nonsens. It was you who brought up the poatato nonsens not me. "hy would I have changed my opinion over the extra material?" Because you promissed it! I had add this additional infos. Also listend up the Missions who this tug took part on such highway exercices. This is notable, because only a smale minorety of aircraft tugs worldwide are used in such a way. It is obvious that you are again playing the same game and it does not concern you at all about the relevance of airspace monitoring systems. With teamwork and your abilities, wikipedia would benefit much more (improvement, not deletion..) instead of ban people and informations from wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Faiman

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

American football player. Played three seasons in college at Nebraska, the last of which was truncated by a career-ending injury. Did not play in national championship games. Served as assistant coach at several colleges, and then for 26 years as high-school coach in Omaha, Nebraska. Fails criteria for automatic notability at WP:NGRIDIRON. Sources cited in article are mostly team rosters, overviews of games, etc., with no extensive coverage of subject. Google searches turn up several obituaries ([62],[63],[64]), an article stating that he had been inducted into the Nebraska High School Hall of Fame ([65]; one of 17 inductees that year), and a local article noting that a high-school football field was being named after him ([66]), but nothing suggestive of national notability. Ammodramus (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was an assistant coach for four Power Five conference programs: Washington State (1977), Missouri (1978-1982), Utah (1983-1984), and Kansas State (1985). He was offensive coordinator at Missouri. In his positions at those programs, he garnered sufficient coverage in reliable sources so as to pass WP:GNG. The coverage is not overwhelming but appears adequate under GNG. I added some such sources to the article. Examples of coverage include:this,this,this,this,this,this,and this. Cbl62 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets Notability. But infobox needs switch to coaching.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] PIKE, RYAN. "Kailer Yamamoto – 2017 NHL Draft Prospect Profile". The Hockey Writers. Retrieved 3 May 2017.

[2] Marek, Jeff. "Sportsnet's 2017 NHL Draft Prospect Rankings for January". Sportsnet. Retrieved 3 May 2017.

[3] Mitchell, Alan. "The Fastest-Rising Prospects for the 2017 NHL Draft". Bleacher Report. Retrieved 3 May 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]