Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 September	16 September >

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) 19:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne LaFleur (artist)

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though the deletion rationale is rather harsh considering there is a list of awards and LaFleur claims to have exhibited internationally (well, Kuwait). However, I can't find any reviews of her exhibitions online, or coverage about her (apart from a photo in Broadway World). The awards don't seem to be significant, from non-notable galleries/museums. This article was declined as a draft at AfC but the author decided to publish it anyway. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST at the moment. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: agree with @Sionk that subject is not without claims to potential notability or merit. I just don't think she has arrived there yet -- too soon as they say. Quis separabit? 23:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails notability guidelines. Ifnord (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Tayback

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Really very little reliable source material to be found on this fellow, other than brief mentions as a cast member on a handful of films of dubious notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very limited coverage and what's available is entirely local--I'm personally in favor of local sources counting toward notability, but hometown coverage alone does not suffice to satisfy WP:WHYN's requirement for a breadth of sources sufficient to create a balanced portrayal. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 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 and move to List of signature weapons. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature weapon

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

This is merely a WP:DICDEF and shouldn't merit a page, similar to the deleted "signature move". I couldn't find sources describing "signature weapons" to the extent of demonstrating notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move and re-formulate/refactor as List of signature weapons (maybe starting it out as Draft:List of signature weapons until reformatted), which would be an interesting, notable, and valuable list article. There are already about 20 great examples in the article already, easily cited, and they would make the basis of an interesting and useful list article. Softlavender (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC); edited 02:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't be opposed, but only if it was draftified until said list was not unreferenced cruft. Otherwise, I think Category:Fictional weapons does that job, as most of the things there tend to be "signature" weapons. I also think that might go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Fictional weapons" is not the same as "signature weapons", and many or most signature weapons are not fictional but real weapons. In addition, categories and list articles do not preclude each other; both are recommended when a category reaches a certain size and/or particular items in the list do not have dedicated articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to list per the excellent suggestion by Softlavender. I think this article is a perfect candidate for a list, and I agree that there are already many examples in the article that can be used. Agree also that in many cases the weapons will not be fictional and will therefore not present a significant overlap with a list of fictional weapons. In addition, a list such as this should (hopefully) be easier to curate, given that signature should convey some degree of significance/notability. Cthomas3 (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move I agree with the move, it would be easier to navigate as it expands. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move per the above conversation as I agree that would be the most valuable/beneficial answer for this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 18 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Fowlie

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

This article is about a person with a youtube channel who is not notable. The article includes references to primary souurces and unreliable websites. Notability has not been established. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Has appeared on multiple TV shows and been on television many times Thursby16 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fowlie's notability seems established by coverage of him and his web series in HuffPo, The Advocate, and other reliables sources (three of which were removed by the nominator as citation overkill, which is fine, but I've restored them to the Ext links section of the article, as they speak to his notability). Primary sources (well actually, pretty much only one, YouTube) are only used to cite works in his filmography table, and based on edit summaries I believe the "unreliable website" the nominator is referring to is Facebook, which is used to cite Fowlie's hometown, an acceptable practice per WP:SELFSOURCE.— TAnthony^Talk 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - As the creator of the article I believe this article focuses on a rising star in the comedy and acting world as well as a prominent figure in LGBT culture in the 2010s. His work with the Huffington Post as well as his acting roles with the Disney Channel and HBO should be enough merit for keeping the article with additional citations that I'd be happy to research and provide. Scott218 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The NEWS link above brings up many articles that could be added to the article about the "So Long, Boulder City" show, from People, HuffPost, Variety, LA Weekly, etc. Robman94 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nova bomb (Andromeda)

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

Pure fiction cruft without any notability. Fails WP:NOTPLOT/WP:NOTWIKIA. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, definitely fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:NOTPLOT. This isn't Andromeda Wikia. If I could see some RSes showing that the concept of a "nova bomb" has reached outside of the Andromeda universe and into the mainstream, then maybe. But as far as I can tell, this is not the case. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No merging or redirection, I cannot imagine anyone typing this into the search box. Ifnord (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Winters

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

As mentioned on FTN, the great majority of this is self-published and otherwise non-independent or non-reliable sources. Attempting to remove those leaves a draft that is not worth posting. Attempting to find other sources and improve the article while remaining within WP:CCPOL results in an unsalvagable mess. Much of the text is refutation of casting doubt on the subject's self-claims. There is one WP:RS about the article subject; a Las Vegas Sun article larded with so many "he claims" and "somebody else says" and other qualifications as to render it nearly useless. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like pure puffery to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree all very puffy,and seems to be written from an insiders viewpoint.Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG Reads like a work of fiction, full of unlikely incidents that are not backed by reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I like the repeated statements of "not verified by outside sources", which is just a wee bit of a red-flag. Delete per above comments - very puffy biography that fails to meet notability after all self-published and non-reliable sources are disregarded. Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. Consensus is that the article should be blown up and started over - moved to User:Joe Roe/List of artifacts in Philippine history Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of artifacts in Philippine history

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

Recent page creation by banned WP:SOCK account from a few days ago. Shaded0 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JournalmanManila Shaded0 (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet comment(s)

Oppose as the WP:Source stated , that :

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

And all of the sourcing and references by this page are fitted from those three sources, this is not a Original researches or a hoax, even it was based from a blog sites which had no references, as the people who want to delete the article must look on the lists of references , every statements from the page had citations this is even not came from Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. as wikipedia policy says , the lists of references are come from the academic and scholar works and even news from reliable news agencies such as Philippine Daily Inquirer for example, (one of the list of references) as if the users or admins is aren't consider this news site as a reliable or irrelevant. in short theirs no question of the accuracy of the page as it was backed by reliable-academic sourcing, and speaking of a "banned sock", there are NO stated rules in the 14 rules of WP:Deletion had stated "delete an article which is created by a banned editor despite or even of its reliability" NONE ! (Dashcam (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Do we delete articles just because they are created by a sock? There is quite a lot of good, well-sourced content here. For consistency with other national archaeology overview articles we should probably rename to Archaeology of the Philipines and clean it up a bit (it looks like there are some copyvio issues), but it seems a shame to lose it altogether. Also, I don't see a tag on Hunter05, are they a confirmed sock? – Joe (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet comment(s)
I support the Renaming for the sake of neutrality according to wikipedia policies.(Dashcam (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Delete and/or Split. Not just because it's created by a Sock (no further comment on that for now, because I haven't reviewed the evidence), but because it ignores some fundamental problems of "Philippine" history - which is that it really wasn't "Philippine" history per se before the 1500s. Ask any historiographer or anthropologist and they'll agree that "Philippine" history presents a patently false sense of politico-cultural continuity. The presence of the article alone is a POV-push issue. An article like this is important, yes, but it really should be reconstituted as (1) Lists of Artifacts from separate ethnolinguistic regions (The Sulu archipelago, Mindanao, the Visayas, the Bicol region, the Tagalog Region, Central Luzon, The Ilocos Region, Cagayan Valley and the Cordilleran peoples); plus (2) a list of artifacts from the prehistory of the Philippine archipelago (to cover the early habitation and migrations period); (3) a list of artifacts from Philippine Colonial History (I will argue that this is also needed); and possibly (4) a list of artifacts from Philippine Contemporary History (say, after Philippine independence from the US. I'm a bit more iffy on this, but this includes things like Ninoy Aquino's bloody bulletproof vest, remnants from the Magsaysay plane crash, etc.) I agree that the content here should be kept as much as possible, but organizing it this way is just... misleading. - Alternativity (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Additinal comment - Upon considering more options, I now support the idea of renaming this as Archaeology of the Philipines, although I still feel it needs to be reorganized to avoid POV/synthesis issues, and rewritten to remove nationalist peacock terms. - Alternativity (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet comment(s)

Suggestion i think it's better to be Rename i believe it's the best thing for this article. i don't see anything misleading on the article , but we should clean this up (by the issues of Peakockries , or any copyright matters) because i see a potential on this page in general they are part of Philippine archeology . (Dashcam (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Further more, we need to recognized to the following methods for the benefit of the doubt:

A , check the references,
B, Rename the article for the best neutral name as possible

(According to WP:Source and WP:Delete ) (Dashcam (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Keep there was no relation between the reliability and sock puppetry, and the article was proven to have a valid references and it had passed the categories of being an encyclopedic, all what we need is to review for if theirs a copyright or neutrality issues. (122.54.197.173 (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)) — 122.54.197.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since when a wikipedia article serves as an artifact /archaeological findings catalogue? If followed through completely, this article might developed into an extra long page. Imagine if a country with a longer and richer history and tradition than the Philippines — such as Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Greece, India or China, create this kind of article? A serial book or a catalogue is more suitable for this kind of long article/list. Plus in the "List of artifacts in Philippine history#Recorded contacts from foreign trades and affairs from contemporary kingdoms" section that contains obscure and spurious claims of Philippines past contacts to Greek kingdom of Ptolemy, Ancient India, and Persia is kind of stretching too far and went out of historiography discipline. But then again how I'm not surprise.., since this article was created by a sockpuppet with an agenda to rewrite Philippines history through creating a pseudohistory. Some of of these artifacts or findings is maybe valid, so with its references. However, considering the notorious bad practice of this sockpuppet to provide false refs; which providing a reference that look so valid, but after careful examination, mention nothing about the claimed section. I do not have the time and patience to examine each of these refs, but then again.., this subject is not suitable to be composed as a wikipedia article. So please delete it already. — Gunkarta talk 15:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gunkarta: See Special:PrefixIndex/Archaeology of and Special:PrefixIndex/Archaeology in. Of course it shouldn't be comprehensive catalogue, but an outline of notable discoveries is a perfectly encyclopaedic topic. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Still did not convince me to keep this article. Plus thanks to Hunter05 and Dashcam that has invested their interest, this article has already developed into a confusing jumble of Philippines artifacts list, that some of them are even too obscure and unclear to be categorized as archaeological findings and lack of notability. Also some parts contains dubious claims with questionable refs, especially that "Recorded contacts from foreign trades and affairs from contemporary kingdoms" table that links Philippines to all that faraway civilizations including Ptolemaic Kingdom. Plus by inventing that obscure term "Archaic epoch" (?) of the Philippines history. Previously I've been interacted and witnessed the work of this JournalmanManila sockpuppet aka User:Hunter05 that created this article. I strongly believe he does not respect copyright, the scientific approach on writing history, nor possessed a required discipline in historiography, as he often spinning to fringe theory, inventing pseudohistory and resorting to spurious claims, even falsifying refs while editing to back up his claims. Possibly motivated by undue nationalistic agenda to rewrite and represent the history of his country in a more glorious light, he often invented a pseudohistory that despite the scarcity of archaeological findings, he describes pre-Hispanic Philippines as a strongly Indic-influenced civilization that somewhat in par with Angkorian Cambodia and ancient Java. Delete this article, and create a new "Archaeology of Philippines" article from scratch, free from all that rubbish, spurious claims and false refs, is more make sense and economic than trying to sort through or try to make sense of all this jumbled up information. — Gunkarta talk 23:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i find out the list of references are comes from academic sourcing, even the external links are valid there are mentioned NO fabrication or pseudo-history so far in any stated items, because of supporting references and passed as encyclopedic (WP:Source) despite of it was created by a sock good for this is ; we should review and correct the terms of some stated artifacts instead

Suggestion considering of the Academic sourcing, I support of renaming it as Archaeology of the Philipines or Archaeology in the Philipines instead of deleting this and check the page for the clean up in shorter terms the page is legit but we should check and clean this up, we need to be sure of its accuracy for the improvement.(Pricedelink (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)) — Pricedelink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Potential keep but rename somehow. We have a series of articles on Philippines history and prehistory, but having something by way of overview is also potentially useful. This has the potential to become a useful list article. Whether or not some of the content is FRINGE is not an AFD issue: that can easily be removed by editing. As to the target, I am not sure that "archaeology" is right. Unless some one indicates that "archaic" is a term that is used, I would suggest "medieval" instead. In some Nordic countries "prehistoric ends at a similar date. I do not think it is so bad as to need TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start entirely afresh I have already expressed my position regarding the organization of the article in my comments above. I've had to think a lot about the usability of the sources in this article and in light of the suggestion of User:Gunkarta above, I'm now also convinced that we should start afresh with an Archeology of the Philippines article. Such an article, not being just a list, would be able to put the listed artifacts in context. I'd like to participate in writing that article, but I'll await the community's pleasure regarding next steps, first.- Alternativity (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum: Please note that the sockpuppet in question has had a history of borrowing citations from other wiki pages and using them to assert "facts" which aren't in the original. (I have particular concerns about his past use of Scott's Prehispanic Source Materials, and of Bellwood's "Pathos of Origin" (Paths of Origins - he doesn't even bother to get the title right.) .Gunkarta and I have both had to undo some of the damage done in the past, and the cost he is referring to is of reviewing the article line by line, and checking not only if the fact is in the reference cited, but whether it has been misrepresented through cherrypicking or through peacock terms and weasel words. To be fair, the sockpuppet has indirectly led to the improved coverage of precolonial Philippine articles. But that's because s/he keeps manufacturing fringe articles so fast that other editors are forced to come up with orthodox articles, lest the coverage of Philippine prehistory and early history be made up completely of fringe theories and nationalist/postcolonial mythologies. - Alternativity (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Alternativity has already !voted above. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune , as WP: Source stated and rename also needs a little clean up because the content are Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax and any false histories. You may wish to review the criteria for WP:Deletion (124.104.94.92 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Suggestion rename it to Philippine Archeology (124.104.94.92 (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)) — 124.104.94.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Totally support Alternativity suggestion to delete and start entirely afresh the Archaeology of the Philippines. We both have shared experiences on dealing and cleaning the mess of fringe theory and examining false refs line by line created by sockpuppet in question in some other articles. Moreover, the problem on dealing with sockpuppet is their tendency to pretend to be other users to rig the vote in an attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions and distort consensus. The practice of this sockpuppet to deceived, mislead and disrupt the discussion can be examine in Talk:Kingdom of Tondo that finally revealed that JournalmanManila, Theseeker2016, Parashurama007 and Hunter05 are actually the same person. I started to suspect that those IP adresses above: 124.104.94.92, 122.54.197.173, and Dashcam might be the same person, which ultimately User:Hunter05 and JournalmanManila. — Gunkarta talk 14:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Gunkarta has already !voted above. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet comment(s)

Support of Keeping and Renaming WHY? because as i checked the page and its content and it was a Legit, and i stand based on the wikipedia's policies on keeping and deleting and it had been passed to the academic sourcing WP:VERIFY, the content of this page had been analyzed and it comes material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks
Books published by respected publishing houses
Magazines
Journals Published
Mainstream newspapers - Inquirer for example (As one of it source)
Academic sourcing
The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

which is the STANDARD core for being and encyclopedic Source or references. all what we need now is only Clean it up and Renaming this and i think it is not appropriate to accusing anyone which stands for wiki standards. and it seems dubious why some users here if they know the policies of deletion , what i mean was we need to Review and check Sourcing of any article before we act on something like deletion as i said earlier this article had a potential just keep it clean! (Dashcam (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Additional Comment PS before i decide to Keep or to Delete this content , i check the following Rules actually i looking on it flaws to decide if to keep or to trash it , but all of the sourcing and the external links are legit so far on my observations, so to be in neutral the only thing i am not sure was the terms that used so for now i Still convinced to Keep it for a while and support Renaming of it . (14:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC))

Comment. If the article is deleted, could it be copied to my userspace please? I'd like to try and salvage at least some of the content for other articles. – Joe (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see this latest account edit also to make sure it is not the same IP: this edit. Shaded0 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. - Expressing support for Joe's request. Given the tainted slant of the text, I still think a total restart is more feasible than having to do a line by line revision for source verification and POV/Neutrality issue resolving. But it would be useful to have a draft version of this temporarily stored somewhere. While the text is oftentimes suspect and usually weasely-peacocky, the sources merit evaluating and checking one by one, and the best way to do that after a delete is to have a temporary draft. That said, may I ask where the community thinks it would be appropriate to discuss the organization of an Archaeology of the Philippines article? That topic will require a lot of input since anything earlier than the 1570s has to deal with the separate cultures and polities plus socio-technological eras. (Some combination of the proposed outlines of Scott (1994) and Jocano (2001), I suppose? I don' remember if Joaquin (1986) or Samuel Tan proposed anything specific. I'd have to check...) Anyway. Eager to get to work on that, but not sure if the List of artifacts in Philippine history talk page would be the right place, considering its afd nom. - Alternativity (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While one shouldn't toss out an article simply because of the sockpuppet origins, the behavior here reminds me of the parable of bad fruit coming from a bad tree. And both the tree and fruit here are rotten. Delete and start over. Ifnord (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:Joe_Roe's perferred space. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:56, 15 September 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 article has been expanded from a dicdef since the AfD started and the discussion has moved from a preference for redirecting towards one for keep/merge, so I'm closing the AfD to remove the ugly red box from it since clearly there is clearly no consensus to delete. The decision of whether to keep the content as a standalone article and expand it, or merge it into another article, is one that can be made through discussion on the article talk, without a deadline. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious assimilation

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

Dicdef, no sources found, article untouched since 2009 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cultural assimilation. Religion is a part of culture, and is ultimately assimilated like any other part. bd2412 T 20:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural assimilation per bd2412. We could perhaps add the second and third paragraphs from our article there, but only if they were sourced, which they aren't. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distinct enough from cultural assimilation that it merits its own article. The fact that it's stubby at the moment doesn't keep anyone from fixing it--nothing here strikes me as OR, more like not much more than DICTDEF... Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for this term and found relatively few uses, but did find an example like this [1] that begins by specifying it as the religious aspect of Cultural Assimilation. The term Religious Assimilation seems to be always accompanying Cultural Assimilation. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: It is a longstanding practice to merge stubby content into supertopic articles, and then break it out again when the material is sufficiently expanded within the supertopic. Merging now would not bar breaking it out into a separate page if the necessary expansion occurs. bd2412 T 20:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These sorts of organizational decisions are really best left to article editors to work out. ~Kvng (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Cultural assimilation; no sources have been presented at this AfD to indicate that the subject is independently notable. None are present in the article, and my searches have not produced anything amounting to SIGCOV. The term gets used link, but it's unclear whether it's been a subject of study independent of cultural or ethnic assimilation. No prejudice to restoring to a full article if can be done with sufficient RS. A redirect works for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not redirect. I've narrowed the definition to avoid the WP:DICDEF problem (syncretism is a separate concept). I've also added a major reference (a Princeton University doctoral dissertation) that makes the point that dominant cultures treat religion differently from other aspects of cultural assimilation. A specific focus on religious assimilation, documented in sources, warrants a separate article—even though of course the more general concept of cultural assimilation will be discussed, if only to distinguish religious assimilation as an important special case.

There is a severe problem with access to sources due to copywrong and paywall issues, as well as old paper-only documents. For example, I cannot use the following, simply because I have no access to it:

Farr, Eugene (1948). Religious assimilation: a case study of the adoption of Christianity by the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi (ThD dissertation). New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

The same is true of the books on Rwanda and on Eastern European Jews that show up at the top of the Google Books search. Nevertheless, WP:NEXIST states: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." By that standard, the warrant for a separate article on this topic should never have been in the slightest doubt.

—Syrenka V (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added two more references, with inline citations and further discussion of the relationships between religious assimilation and other aspects of cultural assimilation. Although still a stub, this article already establishes notability.

—Syrenka V (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent article improvements. Enough sourcing to establish notability independent of Cultural assimilation. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cultural assimilation, with no prejudice against a selective Merge. Of three sources in the current version, two are unpublished. A dissertation and thesis can be good sources, but (a) both talk about this in the context of cultural assimilation, and (b) in the context of this article, both are primary sources, the point of which is to make a novel claim. When a dissertation is published and/or other people start to take up that idea is when Wikipedia covers it. Cultural assimilation is a huge subject, too, so I'd want to see a great deal of sources to justify a stand-alone article for a subtype. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the topic of cultural assimilation is an argument for, not against, splitting off separate treatment of subtypes, particularly those seen in the sources as significantly different from the general case. As noted above, there are many more sources behind paywalls; these are the ones I could easily access on the timescale of an AfD. Of the sources cited, only LeMay 2010 is being used as a primary source, and then only as an example to show that a particular kind of viewpoint is in fact held by some researchers—not to attest to the validity of that viewpoint. Both citations from Connor 2010 are from discussions of the prior literature, and Yang and Ebaugh 2001 is likewise used to attest to the views of Will Herberg and other religious pluralists in the earlier literature. WP:NOR, section WP:PRIMARY: "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." Except for LeMay 2010, these sources are being used as secondary.

The sources cited are all unequivocally published by Wikipedia's standards, which are very broad. WP:V, section WP:SOURCE including footnote 6:

Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see.

Availability on ProQuest or on Sophia University's website would definitely count. WP:RS, section WP:SCHOLARSHIP, explicitly allows use of publicly available, completed doctoral dissertations.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the topic of cultural assimilation is an argument for, not against, splitting off I think I get what you mean by this, but what I mean is, effectively WP:NOPAGE. It's a minor subtopic of a subject we already cover.

Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". We're not looking for verifiability, which is what this sense of "published" means (literally everything on the Internet meets this definition). We're looking for notability and the reliability of sources to establish notability. That requires sources to be published in the sense of a third party determining that the content meets standards for quality and has merit/is worthy of notice. That's why it matters if an article about a subject was on someone's blog or in the New York Times. Granted, a dissertation is better than a blog, and I think it could be used in the article, but I don't think it contributes much to WP:GNG unless it's been published (in the sense of a press). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOPAGE itself, within WP:N: "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". "Is", not "may be". A generalized preference for merging stubs goes against the GNG, except in the case where they cannot be expanded for lack of existing sources. And "minor" is not a reasonable description of the scope of the topic by any stretch of the imagination, as even the few sources already in use demonstrate, let alone the many others easily found by search but not easily accessible as full text.

WP:NOPAGE also mentions cases where merging with a larger topic provides context needed to understand the more specific topic, or where many similar topics are better handled together because more or less the same things need to be said about all of them. In this case, even the very brief stub I have (re)written already demonstrates that there are fundamental differences between the sociology of religious assimilation and that of other forms of cultural assimilation. A treatment of religious assimilation that considers it first and foremost as a subcategory of cultural assimilation would, by that fact alone, be actively misleading.

As to reliability of dissertations as sources: although WP:N does have some additional requirements for sources to establish notability (independence, and at least one secondary source), nothing anywhere in WP:N supports a different or higher standard for reliability of sources than the general standards of WP:RS. The scrutiny provided by Princeton University's sociology department—which must approve any dissertation used to support conferral of its doctorate—is likely more rigorous than that provided by most book publishers (although likely less rigorous than that applied by Princeton University Press). WP:SCHOLARSHIP within WP:RS does mention citation in the literature as further confirmation of the reliability of a dissertation; Google scholar shows that Connor 2010 has been cited 7 times.

—Syrenka V (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cultural assimilation. The content quality here is better than that at Cultural assimilation (much of which should be reduced). Syrenka V has significantly revised this article since the nomination. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the complimentary remark as to content quality! I could do better yet if I had more expertise in interpreting the hundreds of pages of Connor 2010, and access to more of the existing paper or paywalled sources—indeed, a real sociologist with in-person access to a large university library could probably make a Featured Article from this little stub, whose modest size conceals a vast topic. Because of that topic size, however, as well as the very different sociological behavior of religious assimilation versus other forms of cultural assimilation that I mentioned above, I continue to oppose merging with Cultural assimilation.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm not opposed to a keep. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has been much improved by Syrenka V so that it now is sufficiently referenced. Distinct enough from cultural assimilation to merits its own article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 17 September 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 Kollam Cantonment. The redirect target seems to be better than the alternative C. Kesavan. Town halls et al are a feature of the locality and they rarely have any link with the subject (after whom it is named after), save as a token of homage. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall

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

A local municipal hall. Not sure "first air-conditioned" hall in Kerala is enough to warrant inclusion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:RS, 3 References are by one of the most reliable and reputed Indian news media The Hindu. Citation no 1 provides independent significant in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, Citation no 1 is also by the Hindu. Anoptimistix (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:GEOFEAT reads "A geographical area, location, place or other object is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are, in the case of artificial features, independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them." - (This article has significant in-depth coverage especially at citation no 1 by The Hindu which is an independent of the subject (private news media), historically used by wikipedians as a reliable source check the references of Air India Express Flight 812, most of them are by The Hindu. This article clearly passes WP:GEOFEAT, WP:RS and WP:GNG) Anoptimistix (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to C. Kesavan and add one line to that article mentioning this memorial. The memorial hall fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. The sources mentioned within the article, mentioned above by the editor, and otherwise available through my research, all have insignificant one line mentions about the hall. The only two sources (both from the Hindu newspaper) that mention this hall more than one line pertain to one which says that rents of the hall have increased; and the other that says a statue of C. Kesavan was unveiled in front of the hall. That's it. Lourdes 14:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Commenting on this overdue for close AFD. It seems likely to me that the subject is notable though the article is no masterpiece, typical of articles on many structures in India. If this was all we could find on a similar hall in New York City, where online access to newspapers information is much more robust, I might feel differently. I would also be comfortable with a no consensus close.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C. Kesavan. I disagree that it's notable enough for an article of it's own, even if it were in New York I doubt it would be the subject of news articles. Being mentioned in an article ("The meeting will be held at...") isn't a claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A funny manhole cover could get an article if its in New York. I agree that being mentioned in an article is insufficient by itself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete - per WP:GNG, "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source". - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kollam Cantonment as the town hall is situated there. I disagree with the other redirect targets. Buildings can change names but their location is usually fixed. Merging the useful information to the cantonment article seems to be a reasonable solution. I am not in favour of having a separate article because there are not enough references to justify one.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DreamLinker, hope you're doing well. I feel that when a person types the term "C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall", they're not intending to read about Kollam Cantonment. It is more pertinent to redirect them to a page on C. Kesavan so that they can get a background of the person on whom the hall is named. If a page on C. Kesavan had not existed, I would have been okay with a redirect or merge to Kollam cantonment. But we do have a page on Kesavan that is appropriate. With respect to your contention that buildings may be renamed in the future (and therefore we should only merge to Kollam cantonment), that's a future premise that can't be predicted. If the building gets renamed in the future, we could revisit the redirect or create a separate article. But basing a merge suggestion on the premise that the building's name may be changed in the future, is perhaps incorrect. Warmly. Lourdes 04:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your answer. However, as I stated in the first sentence of my vote, my reason for redirecting it to the cantonment is because the building is a part of the kollam cantonment. Regardless of the name, it should be merged to the next larger geographic entity which contains it. This is for consistency with other similar articles on artificial geographic features. In this particular case it is a community hall which is connected more to the immediate community in the locality. Btw, in India, buildings are often named after politicians even though the politicians may not have any significant connection to the building. In such cases, it seems weird to redirect it to the article of the person. A Mahatma Gandhi road in X city should redirect to the transport section of the article about x and not Mahatma Gandhi.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying DreamLinker. So in other words, if an article like Gandhi Smriti were a redirect, then as per you, it should be a redirect to New Delhi rather than to the individual in whose name the museum exists... (iffy, as per me) I can see the advantage of placing details of the hall in both the C. Kesavan article (he's not one at Mahatma Gandhi level and his relevance seems to be local) and in the Kollam cantonment article. Therefore, would you consider changing your !vote to "Redirect to Kollam Cantonment while Merging contents to both C. Kesavan and Kollam Cantonment". What do you think? Thanks. Lourdes 11:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The example you quoted is not exactly analogous. Gandhi Smriti is a museum dedicated to Mahatma Gandhi. (Interestingly, I had no idea it was called Gandhi Smriti btw. I have always heard it being called "Birla House"). On the other hand, this community hall is not a building dedicated to preserving the memory of the person. I would simply merge and redirect to the Kollam Cantonment article. I agree with you that a sentence or two should be be mentioned in the C. Kesavan article. (I will just add it myself). Thank you for your reply and proposing a good solution.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DreamLinker. You say: "On the other hand, this community hall is not a building dedicated to preserving the memory of the person." The building is named "C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall". There is a notable statue too of C. Kesavan placed in the building premises. As much as an observer like me would understand, the town hall is named so purely to preserve the memory of C. Kesavan. I'm not sure I understand you correctly. At the same time, I'll extend my efforts and place the contents of this article to Kollam Cantonment so that the Afd can be closed as a redirect to Kollam Cantonment or to C. Kesavan; I'm okay with either. Thanks. Lourdes 00:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I've already merged/added the contents of this article to Kollam Cantonment and to C. Kesavan. Thanks. Lourdes 00:43, 22 September 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 Owensboro High School. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Curtain Players

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

Drama group which fails the general notability guideline. A search for sources shows little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, suggesting no encyclopedic notability. Owensboro High School doesn't even mention it which is why I would opt for deletion instead of a redirect. DrStrauss talk 16:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That Owensboro High School does not mention it sounds like a reason to merge this article there, not delete it. There seems to be quite a number of mentions of this club in older newspapers but indeed no substantial coverage. Regards So Why 06:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Owensboro High School per SoWhy. Ifnord (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Printing House

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

doesn't appear to pass the WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though well done for keeping going for over 50 years, there's nothing in this short article to suggest what might make this company notable. I can't find anything indpendent online. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see the sourcing either, I'm afraid--in Books or in News. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability - fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barasat Central Bus Terminal

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

WP:OR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. The Banner talk 18:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator. Wefihe (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brick god sosa

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was deleted in May, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brick God Sosa. Edwardx (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's an 18 year old who doesn't appear to have any songs that have charted and has no coverage in mainstream sources. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apple feat

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

Hoax? I can find references to the "apple feat" of Cuchulain, juggling nine apples, but this "apple feat", which involves throwing the specially prepared brains of enemies, seems to be much harder to verify (it may appear in some books I can't access, but even then it has to be pretty obscure, much more so than the Cuchulain apple feat. Fram (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 10:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That there was an (almost entirely notional/mythical) "warrior feat" called the "apple feat" is somewhat documented. Mainly in 19th century Gaelic revival works that cover some of this folklore. However, as noted, much of what we see in this article is uncited (and potentially therefore invented). I would recommend that this be deleted. On the basis of WP:GNG (only references I can find are of the passing/trivial kind, where this "feat" is listed with 29 other such mythical feats). And on the basis of WP:NOTDICTIONARY (just because a term was used at some point, we don't need an article for it). If required, this concept can be covered (as it is in the sources) as a passing reference in a broader article. Like Irish folklore of similar. Guliolopez (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficiently sourced, in addition to everything said above. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 16 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Yiding

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

Appears to be (at least based on a cursory search) a non-notable author. Unless notability is established, delete. (It should also be noted that this was pretty much a single-editor article, and that editor has only edited this article and the related article listed below.) Nlu (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for deletion because it is the series of books that Luo wrote, which also (seems to me) to lack notability, independently or otherwise.

--Nlu (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I also submitted a deletion request at Chinese Wikipedia, for the same reasons. If anyone can establish notability, please also note it at the Chinese Wikipedia discussion if possible. --Nlu (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Yiding as "the diary of the painting," the author is gradually being concerned about, Because his work is unique and true, but also involves the deep cultural exchanges between Europe and Nepal, hoping not to remove these unique small works of art and author entries just for the reason of attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsonlord (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Regrettably, because the illustrated travelogue did receive excellent reviews on douban.com. Unfortunately, user reviews do not count as a reliable source, and References 2-4 aren't independent (Amazon.com listings and Baike Baidu entry which is likely self-written). Reference 1 doesn't satisfy WP:BKCRIT, and try as I may I can't find "two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The zh.wiki articles have already been deleted. Timmyshin (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Catholic Immigration Society

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

Promo for an organisation of dubious notability, unsourced self-serving claims, dodgy refs even where they exist Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local run-of-the-mill religious nonprofit of no national or international notability. Promo. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SoftLavender, fails WP:MILL and GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In2Musica

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

The company lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The are no reliable sources in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an 'in-house' vanity label. No indications of notability or significance and no SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP, no indications whatsoever of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 17 September 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 07:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AEIT

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

A search only turned up the college's own website, which is filled with placeholder text. Does not satisfy WP:ORG in the slightest. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 05:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator, fails to meet WP:VER and WP:ORGDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG. No suitable independent reliable reference found. Tecrum (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not notable; clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Jha

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

There is no significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It look like a promotional article. the sources are either not independent like SocialPost which accepts users articles or the subjects own university not reliable sources like tenfizz an interview with no additional coverage on the subject. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editors Arunzyz, Robertcarter, and Contributerdc are suspected to be the same person. Comments made on this AfD's talk page have been moved here by me. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 10:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arunzyz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Robertcarter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Contributerdc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Keep ~~per nom,~~ this article contains relevant information of technology. I think the technology on which they are working is one of the best in terms of cyber space.Although the notability of the article is less , which can be increased later on. I had heared about him a lot about his free training on digitalization and cyber awareness in rural parts of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertcarter (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Robertcarter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Jha Should not be deleted. Vaibhav Jha is a notable person and i think it should not be deleted as , it has a good source. It has some more Sources which will get updated in a day or two. So i request to all of you to kindly don't mark it for deletion. Thanks a lot. Contributerdc Contributerdc (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So i suggest to KEEP Vaibhav Jha in mainspace Contributerdc (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Contributerdc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article is about a notable person , who is a published Author, Trainer and Innovator. So i also suggest to KEEP Vaibhav Jha in mainspace.

Thankyou Arunzyz (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Arunzyz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This statement copied over from Crystallizedcarbon's talk page.

Hi I understand about the notability of the subject is less. But it is my personal request to you not to delete this subject and kindly remove the mark from deletion of the page. As this can help many young children and entrepreneurs. He is really a talented guy who is doing a great job in educating people free of cost. He belongs from a very humble and low-middle class family, despite of all the ill circumstances he made it possible. So i request you to kindly don't make it out of the main space.

Thankyou so much Contributerdc (talk) 4:42 am, Today (UTC−4)

Delete per nom. I don't know what sources these users are talking about in the nomination page. Mark the train^Discuss 07:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability in the article, and no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I have cleaned up some of the most promotional text, but the notability concerns can't be fixed by editing the article. --bonadea contributions talk 09:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published, non notable student fails WP:GNG WP:TOOSOON. Theroadislong (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither it is self published and nor i know any of these two users.Contributerdc (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person is most definitely a self-published author, whose book was published through the print-on-demand platform Lulu. --bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter the author is self published or not.At the age of 18 , child is doing this much of work and the subject is enough notable personContributerdc (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)— Contributerdc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete We would require in depth coverage in multiple highly reliable independent sources to consider the 18 year old author of a self published book to be notable. In this case, none of the references meets that standard. They are blogs, social media posts and announcements by his school. We do not extend leniency to biography subjects who are young, "talented" and from lower middle class families. All article subjects must meet the threshold of notability, and this one doesn't at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Malynn Brashears, Ph.D.

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

Probably notable, but WP:NOTRESUME ought to apply, I believe, to this article that's basically a resume and that appears to have been created by its subject. Largoplazo (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 17 not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in this very highly cited field, awards not significant enough to pass WP:Prof#C2. Fails WP:Prof as WP:Too soon. Nothing else for GNG. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, it is clear that the subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines (WP:PROF). Deli nk (talk) 18:52, 20 September 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 draftify. Article has been moved to Draft:Thiripuram. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thiripuram

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

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

As of yet non-notable film that fails WP:MOVIE and lacks significant coverage. December 2017 release date, so qualified for WP:TOOSOON. The inclusion of a notable individual's (Mayilsamy) son as an actor in the film does not confer notability per WP:NOTINHERITED SamHolt6 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough materials available in the media websites regarding this upcoming movie. Its clearly an upcoming Tamil Indian language movie. Not to be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgrockz (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems fine and only needs improvement. Should not be treated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.134.240 (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thiripuram upcoming Indian Tamil language movie content verified through media and news links. You can approve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.133.241 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to be fine and valid. Submit for approval. This article can be moved out of Articles for Deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.141.246 (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. 210.18.141.246 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Backed out WP:NAC per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 15
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from deletion nominator Now that the page has been restored, I have more comments. In my view, the article still lacks notability and is in danger of reaching WP:BOMBARD, as the article section regarding the film's musical score contains citations more about the career of the score producer that of the movie itself. There remains no credible coverage of the film itslef, as the only citations that meet Wikipedia's criteria are about one actor in the film (who is the son of a famous comedian, as can be seen in the titles of the sources in question) or the film's score producer, not about the film itself. It is still to early to keep this as an article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from the suspicious behavior of those in favor of keeping the article, there is no real evidence of notability. The plot section in particular in not written in an encyclopedic style at all. It appears that this article was created by someone with little to no knowledge of how Wikipedia works, perhaps with the motive of promoting the upcoming movie. Lepricavark (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revised to DRAFTIFY per WP:NFF addressing not yet released films. ^{revised Alsee (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

~~Keep, or if necessary draftify until the movie is released.~~

The multiple disruptive attempts to close this discussion were extremely unhelpful, and the IP supports were also unhelpful. However this is about sources, not the author. In addition to the sources in the article, I found a few more: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ "Thiripuram Movie First Look To Be Unveiled On 15th June At 7 PM". ksweekly.com. 16 June 2017. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
^ "Mayilsamy's son Anbu to debut in Kollywood". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
^ "ஹீரோவானார் மயில்சாமி மகன் | Mailsamy son turns hero in thiripuram". Dinamalar - National Tamil Daily (in Tamil). 2 July 2017. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
^ "Comedy Actor Mayilsamy Son Introduces into Thiripuram Film". Kollywood Today (in Tamil). 3 July 2017. Retrieved 16 September 2017.
^ "Thiripuram movie first look poster". entertainment.chennaipatrika.com. June 16, 2017. Retrieved 16 September 2017.

Given the difficulty of getting sources from a foreign language, and given that the film isn't even released yet, it seems to have received a credible amount of notice from various sources. Alsee (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As before, the new sources cited do not (in my opinion) cover the subject in depth. The first source [2] is a press release, three sources report on the debut of Anbu (the son of Mayilsamy, a famous comedian) in acting, but do not cover the movie in depth, and the last source ([3]) is a link to a movie poster. Per WP:NFILM, none of these sources (and none of the previous ones) indicate the encyclopedic value of a future film.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, There seems to be few people who wants this page to be taken down for invalid reason. First of all to clear the doubts, am not the one who has created the page. I have added and modified the page with further information that I got. I hail from Chennai and I know about the movie progress and hence decided to contribute to this article. The movie is in final stages and nearing its release. Does it mean that unreleased movies are not subjected to appear in wikipedia? I have seen so many film pages with only few lines and have months to go for its release is running fine in wiki. I wonder why you guys are showing this much interest in deleting this upcoming film page! You can still find enough material online to cover on the film subject. Yes, there are not much of news or articles about the movie in depth but that doesn't mean that it should not be on wikipedia. I wish you people read more local cinema news so that it can be helpful in covering the topic on a wider range and contribute. Looking forward in approving the page. Cheers! 11:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgrockz (talk • contribs)

@Mrgrockz: Per [4], you are the creator of the article. This would normally not be of great concern, but in this case it is due to your attempt at a non-admin closure. As to your points, subjects without in-depth coverage fail Wikipedia's sourcing criteria (WP:VER) and as this is a film article it fails WP:NFILM. You stated that other editors should read more local cinema news, and while Wikipedia has no issue citing local news, editors have to keep WP:GEOSCOPE in mind and traditionally significant coverage must be found for a film at any rate. My views on this issue remain unchanged--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrgrockz, the article will probably be moved to Draft:Thiripuram. Once the movie is released you can move the page back as an article, or ask for assistance at WP:Help desk. (Do not copy&paste the content as a new page.) You can update the page with new information while it is a draft, or any other time. Alsee (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - None of the coverage is substantial. That may change closer to the release date, or after its release. A few lines about this being the movie acting debut of the son of a famous person does not represent significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs more and better sourcing, not deletion. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed this article needs more and better sourcing but it does not appear to currently exist. And if it doesn't exist, then it doesn't meet notability. --Whpq (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, there exist no sources with which to expand the article at the moment. Also, note that deleting (WP:TNT logic could be used as this is a short article) this article once does not preclude us from re-creating it once the movie has been released, assuming the film has longstanding impact per criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wait 3 months, recreate. GNG TooSoon issues. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:43, 23 September 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 Allopatric speciation. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vicariance

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

I have struggled to decide whether to nominate this for deletion, as it is a frequent word in the scientific literature about speciation and biogeography. My concern is that, in contemporary literature, it is used interchangeably with allopatric speciation. Biogeographers use the term vicariance, while evolutionary biologists use the term allopatric. The allopatric article gives a full description of vicariance as it is vital define allopatric separation, the vicariance article; however, covers very little. It is under-referenced and contains a few contradictory statements. It seems largely irrelevant and should probably be deleted and turned into a redirect to allopatric speciation. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree with nominator; this appears to be a partial content fork of allopatric speciation, which clearly lays out the usage commonalities and differences between the two terms and covers all facets of the concept in considerably greater depth. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that, if you look at the redirects to allopatric speciation, it has the terms Vicariance theory, Vicariant, Vicariant event, Vicariant specation, Vicariant speciation. This is basically a testament to the fact that Vicariance is a content fork. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 07:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the obvious conclusion. BTW we don't even need to come here to AfD for an uncontentious redirect like this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I didn't know that. So can I just create it? Does the discussion need to "close"? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - author request. This is the second time I have had to delete an article about the school. Is there no-one in the school capable of writing a Wikipedia article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Perkin Church of England High School

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG the only mention I could find was this Domdeparis (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a single sixteen-word sentence that does nothing more than tell us where the school is. For some strange reason, if you click on the hyperlink "free school" in this article, you get taken to the name of a song-writer. The only reference given is a link to the school's own website. Vorbee (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards being recreated as a redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shojun the Warlord

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

A contested WP:BLAR. I cannot find any notability outside of the Judge Dredd universe, but I am far from a comic book expert. As far as I can tell, this is a minor character that only appears every so often. To me, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, and WP:PLOT seem to apply. That being said, it would be a handy redirect to List_of_minor_characters_in_Judge_Dredd#Shojun_the_Warlord. menaechmi (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. No real-world notability (and he doesn't even appear "every so often", he appeared in six issues in 1986 and that was it), plot only, and has a paragraph in the "minor characters" article. Not notable, not necessary, not encyclopedic. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting or expressing a view either way, but as a point of fact the only reason the character has an entry in the "list of minor characters" article is because this article had recently been redirected to "Judge Dredd", and so a condensed version of it was added to the list. It shouldn't be cited as a reason to delete or redirect. Richard75 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support keep. Character was the catalyst for major impact on Dredd universe and long term story treads, forcing the Chef to resign leading to a new Chief, who causes major errors over a number of years causing the old Chief to return new demented. Using no real world notability as an argument to delete is mute reason as 98% of the comic characters with pages on Wikipedia have no real world notability for example, the guy who shot batman's parents or uncle Joe have no importance to the comic world other than plot points and only appear once when the series is being rebooted so frequency is also no argument for deletion in this case. 86.167.83.232 (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand what "real-world notability" means. Impact on the Judge Dredd universe (which in any case is pretty minor) is irrelevant. Is Shojun the Warlord, as a character, known to anybody in the real world beyond Judge Dredd obsessives? Does he have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? The answer to that is clearly no. He's a plot point from thirty years ago.

The Judge Dredd comic series itself has real-world notability. Its publishing history and significant plot points should have (proportionate) coverage, and Shojun the Warlord's attack on Mega-City One and the resulting resignation of Chief Judge McGruder would merit some place there. But this is fancruft. Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a place to summarise plots. If this were a Judge Dredd fan wiki, an article like this would be perfectly fine - but not in an encyclopedia. The existence of other articles that fail real world notability does not justify this one. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No is you does not know what is notable and what isn't, this page has plenty of notability (just claiming he has not appeared in thirty years is no excuse on notability). All the Judge Dredd wikipedia page are very frequently used by people (just check youtube) to research the subject not just the Dredd obsessive as you call them and just saying its un encyclopaedic is non argument just used by people with no real arguments to fight with. My support for this page stands.86.167.83.232 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of real-world notability. I wouldn't oppose merging if a suitable target can be identified. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no strong indication of notability. Aoba47 (talk) 13:39, 18 September 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. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISURU Linux

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

Don't have references. Bonvallite (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonvallite: "Don't have references" is not a valid criteria for deletion. Peacock (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep no valid rationale presented for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep The issue raised is valid although its argument to warrant deletion is not. The article should be improved rather than deleted, and is urgently in need of in text references. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 07:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Americans in San Francisco

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

Unremarkable, non-notable, unencyclopedic, etc, besides, whites in San Fran are not necessarily American. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- from the PROD last week. Concern = Adds no value to WP beyond the statistics already found in San Francisco Rhadow (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable content fork; any pertinent info belongs in demographics of SF. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world is this topic considered "non-notable" when white people are half the population of San Francisco?--Prisencolin (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable article. Zhangj1079 (Saluton!) 01:26, 22 September 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 per WP:SNOW. The community has indisputably come to the conclusion that the subject notable on her own merit. Otherwise, cash me ousside how bout dah? ℯ xplicit 06:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhad Bhabie

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

Subject is a case of WP:TOOSOON & fails WP:GNG She isn't discussed extensively in any reliable media, at best she is mentioned but never discussed with in-depth. Celestina007 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] (passes general notability) and has a song charted in the United States and Canada (passes subject-specific notability). — Za wl 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that people are uncomfortable with Bhad Bhabie's lifestyle and behavior but I hope rationality will prevail and not let their emotions affect their judgement on her notability. — Za wl 17:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - notable per WP:MUSICBIO #2. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her single entered the Hot 100 chart. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With my experience writing articles on historic and obscure (but notable) music figures, the fact Danielle, a person with absolutely no musical talent whatsoever, is a "singer" makes me lose faith in the modern music industry. Now that my personal opinion is out of the way, here is my take on policy and notability: she did record a song which entered the Billboard Hot 100 and is signed to Atlantic Records, a major record label. She passes WP:NMUSIC. The fact the article creator waited until this recent breakthrough, instead of hastily pushing an article about an instagram "celebrity" months ago, discredits the assertion this is WP:TOOSOON.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your opinion, genius, but she isn't even a ""singer"" as you put. Glad to know we get to have such knowledgeable and impartial people keeping Wikipedia up to date. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a month ago I would have said delete but it seems she just keeps getting more famous. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her single debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 and she is getting a lot of press, therefore notable following the guidelines for a musicians page. WolvesS (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject now meets general notability guidelines; in the past 48 hours, her debut music video reached over 20 million views on YouTube, entered the Billboard Hot 100, earning her a deal with Atlantic Records. I think the article name should be Danielle Bregoloi, and not her stage name. ElCheche (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep as per above; the subject clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO #2. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've never heard of this person until today, but it seems clear that she qualifies for notability according to WP:MUSICBIO. We have plenty of articles on musicians with less claim to notability. It's also not a case of BLP1E, since I'm seeing at least two newsmaking events here, even if the coverage isn't that in-depth. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Danielle Bregoli: She is now notable under WP:MUSICBIO for infamous reasons, but she charted. Also, she is known as Danielle Bregoli in most media, and name should be under WP:NCP guidelines. Tibbydibby (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heepman1997 (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Significant coverage on her already, and the other reasons above. Abequinn14 (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have said, a charting song along with pages worth of articles. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I share the nominator's probable desire to delete the subject of the article (I'm NOT being literal), but from a policy standpoint, she has had plenty of coverage at this point to keep under WP:N and WP:V. I agree with renaming the article to her real name. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Single made the Hot 100 chart. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now signed to Atlantic, a major. Also a notable meme. What we really should be discussing is whether or not to move the article to "Danielle Bregoli" or not. --Aleccat 01:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Renaming can be discussed at its proper venue: the talk page with an RM tag at the top of the section. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is notable as in addition to the significant coverage of the catch phrase, she has a charted song and is signed to a major label. --DoubleuWW (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lázaro Venturine DeOliveira

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

Article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league and who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously tagged for PROD in 2011, but the article's creator removed the tag without explanation. Jogurney (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this guy meets subject specific guidelines (WP:NFOOTBALL) and no in depth coverage by independant sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Of the links provided in the article, several are dead links or to non existant domains, the others are to his club website and there is no in depth articles even there. ClubOranje^T 10:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mainline Airways

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

This seems to have been a hoax that never got off the ground. The single external link is broken. The page has no incoming links. — RossO (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Never got off the ground." I see what you did there! Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see what you did there too. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's astonishing this page has been on Wikipedia for 14 years without an AfD. Possibly a hoax/fraud, possibly a failed business venture. No sources to help determine which, but it doesn't matter, as it should be deleted in both cases. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever this was it did receive some coverage at the time ([14], [15]) and the odd brief mention in more recent years ([16]), but I doubt there's enough for a whole article here.

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Alvarez

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

Non-notable footballer, who plays in a non-professional football league. Fails WP:NFOOTY. — Za wl 17:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which doesn't satisfy the general notability guideline (there are only a few online sources which are simply routine match reports and a signing announcement). Jogurney (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Domdeparis (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, B team footballer who has never managed to step up to 1st team. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no in depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. ClubOranje^T 07:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTBALL by a pretty comprehensive margin. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:23, 19 September 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, the nomination is not valid--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Byungsng

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

There must be an article in Korean Language and violates the WP:A2 Bonvallite (talk) 16:50, 15 September 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'm reluctant to delete the other articles just this minute as none of them were tagged for AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes

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

As a non musician, I have no idea at all what the purpose of this article is, because it does not explain what "Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes" means!!

It also relies on two "sources" which are not WP:RS as they are either crowdsourced, or written by anons on the internet. Roxy the dog. bark 16:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is part of a series of articles. Expanded Ptolemy's Intense Diatonic Scale to Modes, EPIDSM Ionian, EPIDSM Dorian, EPIDSM Phrygian, EPIDSM Lydian, EPIDSM Mixolydian, EPIDSM Aeolian and EPIDSM Locrian. The names refer to the Ionian, Dorian, Phrygia, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeoliana and Locrian Diatonic scales. As far as I can tell, it's all Original research, but you might want to consult an expert. Mduvekot (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All obviously not an encyclopedia article. I tried to speedy and/or draftify this a while back but it didn't stick. All the pages Mduvekot mentions should be deleted for the same reason. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - This doesn't seem to be notable, nor does the article appear encyclopedic. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 21:35, 22 September 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. General consensus is that it is too soon to have an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citybound

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

This article for a game that is in the pre-alpha stage is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON the sources do not prove notability. 13 of the 21 sources are affiliated and are mostly the developers own blog or youtube videos. 4 do not mention the subject, 4 are from 2014 and smack of churnalism et rehash of a press release. This looks like an attempt by someone linked to the developer to promote his game. The article was moved to draft space and was then moved to the mainspace by the creator without having been submitted for review. Domdeparis (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - There are many reliable sources that come up. Gamasutra PCGamer RockPaper Shotgun Kotaku Your deletion argument accuses WP:RUBBISH, which is a surmountable problem, and WP:ASSERTN, an incorrect argument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are all from 2014 and talk about the project none of them are reviews of the game itself which is understandable as according to the article it is in its pre-alpha phase. PC Gamer and Kotaku are simply quoting Gamasutra and the developer's blog (possible churnalism or simply rehashing) and Rock Paper Shotgun says he is skeptical that the game will ever come off and, I quote "the other big concern is that this project could fizzle out before it ever really picks up steam,"...3 years down the line there are no new stories about this project apart from the developers blog and this wikipedia page...I'm afraid I don't call that notable. No-one has reviewed any version of the game itself. We are judging notability of a game and not a project. If I contact a few gaming magazines saying that i am going to build a game that will outdo the Number 1 (which I have no intention of doing) and it gets reported that I am making that claim is my imaginary game notable enough for an article? There are no reliable independent sources to prove that this Citybound project has got past the stage of saying "this is what I plan". Is this a basis for notability and your keep !vote? have you found any other sources because I am still far from convinced? Domdeparis (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that WP:NVG in a nutshell says " A video game release is appropriate for a stand-alone article if it has been the subject of significant commentary in multiple published sources which are independent of the video game developer." There are 2 words that don't apply here, "release" and "significant"...the game hasn't been released and signifiant commentary is defined as "Significant commentary should report more than basic game data (such as its title, platform, publisher, and creative staff). Commentary should be critical and detailed." These articles are far from doing that. Domdeparis (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Those sources are all from 2014 and talk about the project none of them are reviews of the game itself" Umm... by "project" do you mean the development of the game? A game doesn't need to be finished to have an article, which seems to be what you're insinuating. It doesn't even need to be finished ever, as long as it was notable while in development. If it was talking about an external project like a Kickstarter, that's a different story, but they are literally just mentioning a game in development._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Beware WP:SUSTAINED. Your line of argument has tripped me up before. In general, we should have something more than announcement coverage before an article is created. What ideally seals the notability is the reviews, and we don't have any (though from the official website it looks like the game will soon be at a point where we might be seeing previews). --Izno (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm We only have the developers blog as proof that the game is in development. He sent some graphics to a few magazines with some PR stuff. It got talked about 3 years ago and then nothing. I can't get my head around how you think this is notable. I quoted the NVG essay and you just seem to have zapped that. I am far from being an expert on video games but there must be literally thousands of projects that never see the light of day. The developer made some statement that creates a buzz but if you read the comments on the different sources no-one thinks that this guy is capable of doing what he says he will do. And 3 years down the line there is nothing more being said about it from secondary sources...unless you've found some. The sources on the page and the ones you found do not support notability... it's as simple as that. This story has gone to bed and noone is interested in it. Maybe when he does release a version that reviewers can test then it will become notable but as of now it just ain't! Domdeparis (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nuked the primary sourcing, which is indeed trash. I'll take a look at this later this weekend to see if I've got a !vote on this. --Izno (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, most of the sources available to us are from spring 2014: RPS 1, RPS 2, RPS 3, Gamasutra, PCGamer, VG247, USGamer, Kotaku; while one is from fall 2014: RPS 4. My inclination, since we haven't really seen coverage since, is to add a paragraph or so to SimCity (2013 video game), since this project appears to have been started as direct "SimCity 2013" remedy. Merge. This can-or-should be WP:SPLIT from there at a later date, if more coverage is garnered. --Izno (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reread the 2014 autumn article and at the end it says an alpha version was planned for later that month and the WP article claims it's at the pre alpha stage...3 years later...and this article is the very latest independent source about this game...I'm sorry but this can't be worthy of an encyclopedia article not by any stretch of the imagination. Domdeparis (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the bold merge in my comment? --Izno (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can delete this article if you wish, I originally created this article as I had been watching this game develop and it seemed it was on the verge of picking up momentum. You can delete this article as the game has been stalled (again) and development has ground to a halt. BSOleader (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other arguments and that of the creator of the article have convinced me that it's still non-notable due to WP:SUSTAINED._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a full delete is necessary; a sentence or three in the 2013 SimCity article will probably suffice. --Izno (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:BSOleader has cut'n'pasted a copy of the article to User:BSOleader/sandbox. I have undone that as a license violation (loses attribution of who wrote what), as usual for WP:CUTPASTE situations. If that user wishes to have the article revived (with history!) to userspace for ongoing development after deletion via AFD, he is welcome to request it. However, user has quit wikipedia, and draftspace is not an indefinite holding pen for deleted content. DMacks (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to circumvent TOOSOON. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:45, 23 September 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. Obviously meets NFOOTBALL, now it is not an unsourced BLP - keep to improve. (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Bencini

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

With no sources, this article about a living person could be a complete hoax and no-one would know. My WP:BEFORE shows a few sources which seem to prove his existence, however I am unconvinced he is notable as there is no evidence he meets WP:GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 15:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree fails WP:GNG and does not WP:CS --EC Racing (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's initial point is void, as the external links prove the article could not be a "complete hoax". Subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL criterion one, having played in two international matches. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the observations raised by Mattythewhite. Lepricavark (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mattythewhite, WP:NFOOTBALL, etc.
What would help, both at WP:BEFORE and to improve the encyclopedia in general, is if sports bio editors were to follow MOS:BIO#Positions and roles and use the lead to say what makes the subject notable. There are far too many footballer pages like this one where the lead consists of one sentence that says what team the player currently plays or last played for, however minor that team might be, while failing to mention that they played for their country, as here, or made 100s of appearances in major leagues before dropping down the levels. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone could verify the articles content. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject has played for Malta national team per this passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he played for his country Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article really is poorly sourced, but per WP:RUBBISH that is not really a valid argument for deletion. Subject passes WP:NFOOTY, and with a little research should also pass WP:GNG. I've already added a citation to the article so far and am looking for more. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:12, 17 September 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. Speedy/Snow keep, per comments DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visions (Cookware)

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

Promoting a product made by World Kitchen, LLC. Bonvallite (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a long-established and well known range of cookware, and by simply mentioning who the producer is, the article is not promoting the product. As for notability, even though the nomination doesn't even call it into question, there was a book published in 2005: The Complete Guide to Corning Ware & Visions Cookware and there's enough other coverage around, e.g. [17]. --Michig (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. The article is not actively promoting anything and the subject is notable. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the nominator made dozens invalid deletion nominations today, demonstrating they do not understand our notability policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm the one who put the GNG template on the page, and since then several sources have been added. Having worked on the article a bit, I'm now convinced it's notable but needs more sources. I intended to change the GNG template to a refimprove but haven't done it yet. There is some promotional language that should be removed ("number one selling cookware", "most famously Corning Ware cookware", etc). Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the creator of the page and am not affiliated with World Kitchen, nor was it my intent to promote the product. Rather, my interest was to document what I believe to be notable due to its four decades of production, innovative composition of the material used to create it, and it's numerous references in books and other media. There are pages for other kitchenware such as Pyrex for similar reasons. Jtfolden (talk) 05:51, 17 September 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 Procedural close. Bad faith nomination. Gregory opened this AfD because the merge proposal has support. He also did not provide a deletion rationale. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Notre Dame attack

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

Article on this June 6, 2017 attack was kept at AfD in June. A discussion was subsequently opened on the talk page proposing that it be merged to List of terrorist incidents in France. I am bringing it to AfD to draw more eyes to the discussion. A merge will necessarily lose almost all of the well-sourced detail now in the article, in my opinion, the detail about the perpetrator is especially is notable and useful to our readers.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes WP:NCRIME as per WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Although WP:LASTING cannot be absolutely determined by a recent event, this is one of a series of terrorist attacks in France that, cumulatively have led to the continuation of the extraordinary security measures (the street of Paris patrolled by soldiers) under Opération Sentinelle. The incident has met WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE with original WP:INDEPTH reporting (not mere echoing of wire service stories) in international WP:RS media. And there is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, even though perpetrator has not yet come to trial. Article is well-written and well sourced. Moreover, merging, as has been suggested, will cause the loss of encyclopedia material. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 15 September 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 E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Hanson

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

Herman Hanson was an NCO with E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II. His rank (staff sergeant) does not make him notable under WP:SOLDIER; no awards are indicated although he may have had two Purple Hearts. After the war, Hanson worked for Sears, Roebuck and Company but there is no significant coverage in the record. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) per the many previous discussions: I don't think this needed to come to AfD. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Fails WP:SOLDIER. Insufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odin Brewing Company

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

Organization is not notable. There is no significant coverage. refer to WP:CORP, WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbjordahl (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems half-baked, having been created by a single-purpose account. The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as Brewing in Seattle; Washington Beer: A Heady History of Evergreen State Brewing; Beer Lover's Washington. Andrew D. (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ coverage in trade magazines may not signify notability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)/Archive_14#Trade_journals_and_trade_publications. Requests from new contributors to wikipedia does not invalidate their activity or comments per se. Request feedback from other contributors on this matter of notability and confirmation from any editors that there no conflict of interest. Conflict of interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbjordahl (talk • contribs) 7:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This !vote is from the nominator contrary to WP:DISCUSSAFD, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Andrew D. (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Whatever technical problems that might exist with the nomination, the nominator's addendum that coverage in trade magazines alone might not suffice is helpful. The brief mentions in The Stranger (newspaper), The Seattle P-I and The Tukwila Reporter are WP:ROUTINE blurbs written in the time honored form "press release -> lazy reporter -> filler". Significant coverage is usually the result of a reporter doing actual reporting work, leaving their desk, going outside, gathering information, interviewing people. The subject itself is run of the mill: a guy opens a small business in 2009, makes widgets, buys another small widget maker, moves to larger facility. Several hundred thousand other small businesses did the same thing in 2009. Odin Brewing seems nice and all but, it's not an encyclopedic topic. I would change my mind and support keeping this article if in-depth coverage existed in a reliable publication, or if at least we could establish that Odin Brewing is unique or special in some way that has had a noticable effect or influence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, references rely almost exclusively on company produced material or quotations from company officers and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 13:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 14:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete very few broad articles to meet GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nilation

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

Page describing a neologism with no documented usage outside a single YouTube video. Fightindaman (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fightindaman (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a protologism that would at most merit a sentence in the article on its inventor, if one existed. XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could be speedied as A11. No such word is in use and this edit summary (where PROD was removed) gives an insight into the earnest motives of the article creator: Noyster (talk), 11:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Clearly non-notable subject. Article meets criteria for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A11. The sock/meat puppetry from single-purpose accounts along with the edit summary noted above indicate the ill intentions by which this article was created and defended. Deli nk (talk) 18:50, 20 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T. Rantula

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

Article has 92 references, but the first several don't indicate real world notability and I did not find meaningful evidence in a Google search to contradict this. Considered CSD as unremarkable person, but couldn't rule out the possibility of notability so am bringing it to AfD instead. Subject would need to have been the non-trivial topic of discussion in multiple reliable independent published sources— blogs aren't going to do this, and neither are pages of statistics. If subject is notable, this needs to be demonstrated early on. Has received no awards, held no notable wrestling titles. Existence≠notability. KDS4444 ^(talk) 12:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•Weak Keep as of right now. He is fairly notable in Pittsburgh Indy Wrestling, and was trained by a professional wrestling hall of famer. Notable entertainer section, which Pro wrestlers fall under according to the sportsperson page, doesn't cover wrestlers at all... So there isn't really any reliable grounds to delete it. I started a talk section on the notable persons page in attempts to straighten that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvstaylor1 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly written as WP:PROMO and much of the narrative lacks WP:CS also fails WP:BIO --EC Racing (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources in the article are unreliable, trivial mentions, or primary. All of the Pro Wrestling Illustrated references seem to be WP:ROUTINE match results, which do not establish notability. Lastly, notability is not inherited from the "hall of famer" that trained him. Nikki♥311 01:34, 18 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hetzner (Pty) Ltd

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

References appear to consist of authorless press releases or mutual back-patting from various other Internet companies. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable INDEPENDENT published secondary sources. Suspect page creator of also likely having an undisclosed financial COI, given the sources cited here and the account's very brief set of contributions (8 edits total over 1 year). KDS4444 ^(talk) 12:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. (changed from weak keep) The ITweb sources are all press releases. But I dunno, MyBroadband seems to be a reputable IT news site, and there are a number of sources from there, many from 'staff writers' but some from named staff, they also seem to have won a number of industry awards [18]. The frost and sullivan award source seems independent, but it is a primary source, not a secondary source. EDIT: I am convinced. Α Guy into Books™ points out that MyBroadband is semi-affiliated with the subject, so there isn't anything left to demonstrate notability. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 12:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Host Elsewhere perhaps this company could host its own profile? it seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH, especially as this article is entirely sourced from MyBroadband, which is owned by the same holding structure that owns Hetzner. (therefore is a primary source). Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -

(I think "host elsewhere" means "delete" in this context— I've never seen that one before and it isn't listed at WP:AFDFORMAT yet, but am open to other interpretations(?). KDS4444 ^(talk) 08:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Press releases and sources that fail WP:CORPDEPTH do not indicate notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 16 September 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. On the one hand, I'm invoking the snowball clause, because it's abundantly clear that the overwhelming majority of editors favor keeping the article. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it seems this nomination is really just a platform to get attention for an issue on another Wikipedia site. Each site has its own rules, including its own deletion standards. (Whether starting this AfD with the intent of getting participants on a de.wiki discussion is a violation of en:WP:Canvassing is left as an exercise for the reader.) —C.Fred (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Parsons Green bombing

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

The German Wikipedia claims that this article is irrelevant, because we don't know if placing a bomb is clearly and accident and not a terrorist attack and to them, there is no victims involved. So I thought, if one Wikipedia deletes an article because of standards, another one should do it as well. If you disagree with the Germans, just leave them a message on their delete discussion. Just write „Ihr seid verrückt ... this is so relevant“. --Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a sigificant incident in the UK and should not be deleted. This bombing has been confirmed as a terrorist attack. Quite silly if Wikipedia editors in Germany want to delete a terrorist attack article which is important. Piffle claim for deletion! HectorBrockerbank (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the protocol: he is one of the German Wikipedians who want to delete the German article, because he thinks terrorism in the UK is irrelevant. And I am not illustrating a point, I am just getting some intelligent, international people to argue if this article is irrelevant or not.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user requests a deletion and votes against himself. This is a clear case of WP:POINT.--Ailura (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[...]And you might start to read the articles you are linking to. It doesn't say what you are indicating.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. While Wikipedia is "not the news", and details are still sketchy, it's clear that this was a bomb left on a tube train, which the authorities are calling a terrorist incident. If we delete it now it will only need to be recreated again in a few days, if not hours. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now confirmed as a terrorist incident by the Met. Any terror attack passes the notability threshold and it's neither here nor there what they do on the German WP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have already linked to this article hours ago on the German delete discussion. That was ignored, because the British police officials aren't trustworthy sources in Germany.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: placing a bomb on a train is not an accident. Silly Germans.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Absolutely ridiculous deletion request. The claims are wrong vis a vis victims; there are no fatalities but 22 injured. Widespread news and other coverage. There is no justification to delete because the German page has done; this would involve following even the most ridiculous (this) of precedents. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am on your site, mate. I just wanted to talk to some clever guys about the German delete orgy and their claims, that the police officials in the UK aren't trustworthy sources ;-)--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Just read the page German Wikipedia to see their stricter notability standards. If we synchronise all Wikipedias then we may as well get rid of all fair use images as they are banned on es.wiki Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can an admin speedy close this? It's a joke request, the nominator doesn't even want to delete it Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. German Wikipedia, wtf? It won't even take an admin to close this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke request. I just want people to discuss if it is relevant to Wikipedia. Because the German Wikipedia deleted their article.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care what German Wikipedia does. This is not German Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Speedy Keep. Definitely not "irrelevant" – it has been comfirmed as a terrorist attack and is clearly notable. If dewiki has different standards they obviously don't apply to enwiki in the same way. –72 _(talk) 12:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But this is Wikipedia, so the standards are the same. If it is relevant for us, it should be relevant for the German Wikipedia as well. But if you disagree with the Germans claiming ridiculous things, just write on their delete discussion page.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not, as has been pointed out several times. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haakon Lorentzen

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

Artcle has not established any notability of this person. His mother may be of note but this person is not a public or official figure and is only very distantly related to the Norwegian royal family. Nothing more substantial can be said about him, due in part to lack of sources, aside from some genealogical information. Re5x (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO as well as WP:CS clearly written as WP:PROMO--EC Racing (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is no indication of notability at all. Surtsicna (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a pretty clear case of notability not being inherited; nothing in the article points to the subject being notable in his own right, only that he has connections to other notable individuals. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:04, 20 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awwad Al-Otaibi

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

Football player, only played 11 matches, 7 as a substitute after playing for 7 years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Never took off. scope_creep (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:FOOTY as per this Has played in the Saudi Professional League which is fully professional league Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where does it say he has played in fully professional league? scope_creep (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here HAJER VS. AL AHLI 0 - 2 in the 2011–12 Saudi Professional League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has never played in a fully professional league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as above. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where exactly is he mentioned on the page: this. A simple search on first, last, first + last names, doesn't turn up anything. So far there is assertions, but no evidence. User:GiantSnowman where is your evidence? WP:BADNAC is a good policy. scope_creep (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is literally his Soccerway profile, it's entirely about him, what on earth do you mean "where exactly he is mentioned"?! Just because the spelling is slightly different is irrelevant. Transliteration from Arabic is notoriously complex. Giant Snowman 12:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sop. Where is the evidence. His Soccerway profile shows he played 11 games, 7 as a sub. He is non starter and the profile doesn't show any evidence that that he satisfies WP:NFOOTBALL. scope_creep (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His Soccerway profile clearly shows that he has played in the Saudi Premier League which is listed as a fully professional league. This meets point two of WP:NFOOTBALL. Kosack (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down:, are you really claiming he has played senior international football? I can find zero evidence of this. ClubOranje^T 08:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reread my comment I think. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread it. You clearly state "has played senior international football". ClubOranje^T 11:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFOOTY. Please refrain from attacking BLP as "non starter" and "never took off". gidonb (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can be closed as WP:SNOWBALL keep. gidonb (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does technically meet WP:NFOOTBALL, but that only asserts a "presumption" of notability. With only 21 minutes in a single fully professional league game according to his profile I'd want to see a bit of coverage somewhere. Note the Crown Prince Cup games were against lower league sides, I can't even find a reliable source with his DOB. Even the Arabic pages seem to only have vague stats and no in depth about him. As stated in WP:NSPORTS and WP:N, all standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. NFOOTBALL is only to provide bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. With more FPL time or international appearance I'd accept that likelihood, but this subject fails WP:GNG. ClubOranje^T 11:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL, which, contrary to some editors' beliefs, has as much worth as WP:GNG in deciding the notability of football biographies. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment not according to this discussion which determined there was a strong consensus that the GNG is the controlling guideline, while the criteria at NSPORT are useful tools to try to quickly determine the likelihood of an article meeting the GNG. and concluded There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. ClubOranje^T 10:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another football fan. What is the ethics around a football fan or fans voting in a Afd for a football or sports related article in WP? Is it always an automatic keep, all the time? WP:NFOOTY is a lower standard of notability than WP:GNG, and it always has been from the getgo. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you care to take a look at other football related AFDs, you might find it isn't "always an automatic keep, all the time". Why do I sense condescension in your tone? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY by playing in a fully professional league. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Smartyllama (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep - Although this article is about a footballer who highest achievement is ~~21 minutes~~ a handful of matches of play in a fully-pro league (detailed by the Splstats profile in Arabic), and there is nothing online (as ClubOranje notes above) to suggest the article could ever be GNG-compliant, we generally assume that offline sources exist (particularly in a region with limited internet sources such as Saudi Arabia).and we have an established consensus to !Delete articles like this when a footballer so minimally crosses the threshold in NFOOTY. There is no good reason to believe the subject of this article is notable. Jogurney (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sports fans voting automatic keep above have taken general disclosure under WP:COI. Specifically WP:COI states:

Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing..

All the soccer fans here have a clear conflict of interest and such should recuse themselves, or undertake WP:COI, and list your conflicts of interests and affiliations to closing admin. scope_creep (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI defines conflict of interest as "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Where has any of that occurred in this AfD? Mattythewhite (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:, Football fans monitor football AfDs , cycling fans monitor cycling AfDs, Politics followers monitor politics AfDs. It is the way it is, people largely comment on what they know about. That doesn't make it a COI. I have a football interest, but don't plan on declaring that at every AFD. ClubOranje^T 08:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that. Perhaps, and end up with talking heads not having a scobie what they are talking about. I take the point. Sorry for mentioning it. It was crass. But, even though it has been pointed out that WP:GNG is a higher standard of notability than WP:NFOOTY, that the player has only played 21mins and been a sub 7 times in 11 matches over 7 years and I still can't determine if he played in the fully professional league and there is zero coverage of the player anywhere, outside the Soccerway profile, they still want a keep it. scope_creep (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there seems to be some confusion as to what the sources in the article are saying, presumably as a result of them being written in Arabic. However, google transalte is able to present perfectly reasonable translations which show that he has played at least 15 matches in fully professional leagues, not the 21 mins noted by several editors above. Fenix down (talk) 10:31, 22 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Norton

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep on wikipedia; Sorry to say but this deletion nomination is flawed because I have nothing to do with the business, so I am not SPA, the article is not about a business or the person's business. It is basic biography of a person who has received internet news and media coverage in depth, whose book I read and decided to create the article. You can see that the article has 57 references. He is certainly notable. The article is not even a tad bit promotional, go read it. It only says who he is and why he is notable. The article describes facts only. --Tocsgmli (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The number of references on the page is a weak argument, considering that many of the references are duplicated. For example, the "About" page of the subject's personal website appears six times in the references list. The actual number of unique references is 43, among which are multiple pages from the same domains (four articles from Deseret News, six from Forbes). dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 10:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lets consider 43 but multiple times of news or forbes articles does not mean they are less references. Each coverage in forbes is actually more of reason to consider notable. Each of them are different. Next, all articles about them, including CNN are not just mentioning them, they are describing whole story. That depth of coverage in reliable sources means he is notable. I actually think that his wife may also be notable as an Emmy award winner but as whole, just talking about Richie Norton, he is quite notable with all coverage, this is not struggling coverage as edward says. Tocsgmli (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — 57 references for a page that is little more than a stub? Someone is rather more than just a bit determined to get Mr Norton on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are mostly garbage. I started going through them, and then gave up trying to fix the article. Richie is a relentless self-promoter who hasn't really done anything worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. But, as one of the sources says : "When it comes to doing your own PR (particularly without overtly promoting yourself), author, business advisor and personal development/management coach Richie Norton is surely one of the best." Mduvekot (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. Pretty clearly a PR piece as written. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO, and the article is obviously promotional. Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 16 September 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 of Godric^{On leave} 09:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Quay

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

Possibly WP:TOOSOON, this is a self-created article for a comedian which has one reference to IMDB, one to his college football stats page, and two to articles about his brother. Notability is not inherited. A WP:BEFORE search suggests he does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT Melcous (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. From nl.newsbank.com, "Campbell doing best to live up to family name at UM", "Campbell lifting game, inch by inch", "Two pairs of brothers and two cousins make Cardinals camp a family affair". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All but one of those sources are about his college football career, so doesn't the question then become whether he passes WP:NCOLLATH? I'm not convinced he does (no national media attention). At this stage I'm not changing my vote therefore, but I would propose that if he is found to meet that notability guideline on that basis, the name of the article should be changed to Jared Campbell and the focus be on his football career, not his self-promotion as a comedian. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think NCOLLATH overrides GNG. Hmm. Also, Jared Campbell would probably be his WP:COMMONNAME. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say that would make him notable for his college career and passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It appears that he doesn't quite pass gridiron football notability because there is no indication that he ever actually played a game in the National Football League. He may have been cut from the team without playing in a preseason game. However, that is close enough to stubify and tag the article rather than deleting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oras Sattar

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

No evidence of notability. The one reference is not suitable to demonstrate notability. Article is questioned at arWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep I Check his arabic article on wikipedia I think he is notable enough for wiki Leodikap (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 15 September 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. This does not preclude a bold merging or redirect of the page if talk page consensus can be gained. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Elements

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

Attempted PROD, but it was removed, with no reason given for its removal. The article fails WP:GNG due to having only a single reliable source around on the internet. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I assume the "single reliable source" was probably in reference to http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/05/14/e3-2006-age-of-elements - which is a reasonably detailed source. If I could find any others, I'd !vote keep. But so far, the only other thing I've found was that it was also nominated for IGN's Top Fighting Games of E3 2006, but did not win. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's another IGN article for a different platform, but this doesn't constitute significant coverage in multiple works. --Izno (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Izno - can you provide it? Even if its not significant coverage, I'm trying to clean up a bit, in case enough sourcing can be found. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I apparently saw the two you did on IGN. --Izno (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. --Izno (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I've rewritten and sourced the article. There's still not a ton, but I've turned it into a decent stub in which all content is sourced, at least. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem still stands, it's a perma-stub made up of entirely incidental descriptions of the game. It's like the video game equivalent of Bigfoot and without any preview articles specifically devoted to it, I don't see how it's notable even if you can amass enough descriptions of it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say things like "without any previews specifically devoted to it"? That's obviously not accurate. Your nomination even alludes to a preview. It's listed above. Sergecross73 msg me 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow review of the sources added by Sergecross73
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote as above remains delete even after Sergecross's edits. We don't have a significant treatment in multiple works which means this article for now and probably forever given its age will not be notable. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a parent article, if the game was cancelled (i.e., never released), per WP:NOTCATALOG. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: There is no direct parent. The nearest article is E3 2006, which itself is a redirect to a list article and which I think would WP:SURPRISE readers following the link. --Izno (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had thought about merging too, but there aren't many good targets. It'd be a bit of an undue issue to mention at Atari, and List of PSP games doesn't seem to track cancelled games... Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COQOS

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

Already deleted once today. Recreated by same ed Roxy the dog. bark 15:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the promotional language has mostly been removed, there is an obvious COI (see history of user page). Deb (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a product. Aside from the two speedy-deletions of previous instances here, there was a previous deletion of a redirect-only page on the vendor, and pages on the product and its vendor have previously been deleted on the German Wikipedia. As to the product's notability, searches return various routine announcements and there are the two referenced brief items summarising the configuration that the firm have recently been demonstrating. I don't think these are enough at this time to indicate attained encyclopaedic notability, by WP:PRODUCT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:MILL, as there is not enough differentiation shown between this product and other products.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 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 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games#Participating nations. Redirects are cheap. No procedural comments/actions as to the non-nominated articles. A bold series of edits may be undertaken to redirect them too! (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games

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

The unremarkable results of a very small country at not very notable youth games (for ages 14-18). No reliable independent sources. Probably some old report can be found in a local newspaper, just like can be found for youth soccer games, local tennis tournaments, ... but nothing beyond routine coverage probably (I couldn't even find that much online, but not everything is online of course). Fram (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason are:

Comment I feel like we have had this discussion before about the Commonwealth Youth Games and their nations before. Matt294069 is coming 05:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the lot to 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games#Participating nations without merging. These don't now evidence notability presently and it would be difficult without research above and beyond the expectations of WP:BEFORE to evidence it in the future. One might also redirect to the various "country at the CYG" articles that apparently exist; if that's preferable to others, I have no issue. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. This is not a major competition and garners very little coverage. It does not justify exhaustive listing of results in every event. If redirected, we would just be left with a bunch of useless redirects that nobody would have created if these articles had never existed. --Michig (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant help but feel we are being 'racist' against small countries here, either none of the countries should have these articles, or all of the countries should, otherwise we are discriminating, since this type of article doesn't gain extra notability from the medals or the competitors, I fail to see the point of any of them. Take Australia at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games for example, it hardly improves the topic. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the main article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the main article, and by that I mean all countries, not just these "small" ones. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, as sufficient reliable sources have been produced from this discussion. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linan High School

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

Contested PROD. This article discusses an educational institution which no major news source has covered and thus fails WP:GNG for education. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:V is accomplished as by this, this, this and this, therefore satisfying the nomination's concerns. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, your sources are talking about another high school in Lin'an District, instead of Jincheng (which is claimed by the article)...and I cannot verify the existence of this high school. --Antigng (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right. The author intended to write an article about "临安中学", a high school in Lin'an District. However, an anonymous user mistook "Jincheng town"（zh:锦城街道） for "Jincheng city".--Antigng (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the first high school in Lin'an District, this school will definitely get some in-depth coverage in local chronicle books. I found a piece in 《中华学府志浙江卷》 (snapshot). I haven't checked 《临安市志》 or 《临安县志》, since they are not available online, and perhaps there will be more coverage in these two books. --Antigng (talk) 17:16, 19 September 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 Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2018. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ches Crosbie

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. WP:ATD is redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2018 which would preserve article for if it is just WP:TOOSOON. Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only sources are basically ROUTINE and interviews, He had a career as a lawyer, but it is not notable, non of his other political stunts have gathered any significant coverage either. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most prominent lawyers in Newfoundland, Q.C. From a prominent political family & has been travelling the province for almost a year promoting his candidacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, having a Q.C. is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be sourced much better than this. Secondly, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so being a member of a prominent political family counts for nothing whatsoever. Thirdly, being an as yet non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party does not pass WP:NPOL — to be notable as a politician a person has to hold office, not just run for it, and the only other way for an as yet unelected candidate to get an article is to have already passed another inclusion criterion for another reason (that is, Hillary Clinton does not have an article because she ran for president in 2016 and lost; she has an article because she held the roles of First Lady, Senator for New York and U.S. Secretary of State before running for president.) No prejudice against recreation in April 2018 if he wins the leadership, but nothing written or sourced here gets him an article as of September 2017. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am pretty sure that Mrs. Clinton would have an article if she had only ever been notable for holding her party's nomination for US president. As an example that this is probably the fact we have an article on Evan McMullin, who was not even a candidate of any pre-existing party, but gained enough support in the election, and enough newsmedia coverage to justify an article on him. The article was created 8 August 2016, and I doubt that his position as a policy advisor to the US Congress House of Representatives Republican caucus would have been enough to justify an article the day before, but I don't really know.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ATD per nom. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom - doesn't seem to currently meet notability standards right now, but it's probably useful as a redirect, which will also preserve the history for recreation in the future. ansh 666 05:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious liberalism in Rajput courts

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

Appears to be a coatrack essay/synthesis and is not supported by the sources as claimed. Was created (without correct attribution) by merging three equally poor separate articles and pretty much has no links other than through what are now redirects from those articles. In all the years I have looked at this thing, I've never found sources that discuss the subject in any meaningful way. Sitush (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:ESSAY. Maybe worthy of a small mention in a parent article. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 07:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as synthesis. The sources do not even mention "religious liberalism". Also, much of the article is aboutu dynasties that didn't use the self-designation Rajput, but are called "Rajput" anachronistically. utcursch | talk 17:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 16 September 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. Procedural close.Bad nomination statement/rationale.See HighKing's !vote. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PlainsCapital Bank

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

Reason The content in this article is very out of date. Current information on PlainsCapital Bank is in the wiki article on its holding company, Hilltop Holdings Inc. Rather than keep two separate streams/articles with the same content, and in keeping with wiki focus to publish bigger articles that are more newsworthy, vs smaller articles that are deemed not as newsworthy, suggesting we delete this article entirely. We can update content on this topic, in the newer more complete article on Hilltop Holdings Inc. Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 16:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a bank that faces the public everyday. Hilltop Holdings Inc. is about a holding company that lists what they own. This is a definite WP:SOFIXIT case where adding updated information is welcome. Also, your signature is in the wrong format, please read WP:SIG. Nate • (chatter) 23:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator does not present an argument for deletion here, but for merging and redirection. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Defiantly flawed, but could be fixed per User:Mrschimpf.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that there is no valid reason provided in the nomination for deletion and as such, this AfD should be closed. Notwithstanding that, I have not found two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and none of the Keep !votes above have provided any indications that this topic is notable. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:13, 20 September 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) 13:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Slam champions

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

I don't think we really need another Grand Slam list. We already have List of Grand Slam women's singles champions, List of Grand Slam men's singles champions, List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions, List of Grand Slam men's doubles champions, List of Grand Slam women's doubles champions, Chronological list of women's Grand Slam tennis champions, Chronological list of men's Grand Slam tennis champions, List of Open Era Grand Slam men's singles finals, List of Open Era Grand Slam women's singles finals, List of Grand Slam singles champions in Open Era with age of first title, List of Grand Slam and WTA Tour Tier I/Premier singles tennis champions, and more that I'm not even listing. There is nothing new here plus the title is wrong since it is not a list of grand slam champions, it's a list of grand slam tournament champions since June of 1968. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CFORK as the nominator has mentioned the content is covered already in numerous articles. Ajf773 (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article does not duplicate any existing material, so it is not a WP:CFORK. It presents the material in a very useful and easily accessible chart so that the reader can easily view both venue, type, and year for each champion, all in one article. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does duplicate the existing material, namely Chronological list of women's Grand Slam tennis champions and Chronological list of men's Grand Slam tennis champions. The only supposedly added value is that it combines single and double titles in a single list. I don't think we need another fork, and the current set is already well bloated. No such user (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicated content already in the multiple list examples given above. --Navops47 (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)-[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Too much of a good thing.--Wolbo (talk) 21:41, 19 September 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. Nobody's arguing that Imran Kahn isn't notable, or that we shouldn't cover his awards. The argument is just whether they should be covered in-line with the main article, or broken out into a list. The majority here feel in-line is better, but not enough that I feel comfortable declaring an actual consensus.

In any case, it seems reasonable to clean up the main article to eliminate duplication. Alternatively, if people want to continue to discuss a redirect/merge, that's not something that needs AfD involvement, so that can be continued on the article talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honours received by Imran Khan

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

There is no need for this list when someone won only three or four notable awards. We can easily cover them on his page rather than having such a list. Greenbörg (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's numerous awards/achievements listed here which is better of as a list, and there is plenty of coverage on those achievements. This isn't any different to other award lists for BLPs, and Khan is obviously a quite notable public figure. Mar4d (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree here. I think let the other users decide. For me, there is still not enough stuff for stand-alone list. Greenbörg (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see at best a request to merge and redirect to Imran Khan#Awards and honours here. Why wasn't that just done per WP:ATD? Whether something is an appropriate WP:SPLIT is for normal editing and discussion to resolve, has that even been attempted anywhere first? postdlf (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mar4d. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfarazbaig (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Imran Khan. Some of this article appears to be on Imran Kahn rather than on honours and awards won by him. Vorbee (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Already covered by Imran Khan#Awards and honours, and the content was there before this list was created. Let's not keep a worthless redirect just because someone created an article. --Michig (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Duplicates information already in the main Imran Khan article, so there's no justification for a separate article. Neiltonks (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main article on Imran Khan.---Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A spin out awards and nominations article stops the main one from being lop sided. If they duplicate information, that can be fixed by trimming the main article and expanding the list. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 23 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Florent Pereira

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, no evidence that the actor has played a major role in films listed in the article. Current sources are either unreliable, primary or youtube videos. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he seems to be playing regular supporting roles in Tamil films following his debut in Kayal. Away from films, he is also notable for his work as the General Manager of Kalaignar TV and enjoys wide coverage as a socialite in Chennai. Will try and add sources regularly as I find them. Editor 2050 (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Editor 2050 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Delete "regular support roles" is not the same as significant roles. The subject is not notable. I am thinking we need to tighten our guidelines on actor notability, and film notability as well. At one point it seems that Wikipedia was trying to be a carbon copy of IMDb. We have far too many articles on both actors and films that are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree but even then a few sources show off his notability as the General Manager of one of India's leading television stations. The man obviously does carry notability, which may just not be clear in the Western world. Editor 2050 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as he does not pass WP:NACTOR but has significant coverage due to his Television Manager position. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails GNG and NACTOR no in-depth coverage only passing mentions, this source [27] mentions that he is a General Manager-Administration, Kalaignar TV. In my opinion it should be deleted and redirect to Kalaignar TV. FITINDIA 10:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from creator - another point that could be understood is that Florent Pereira is not a young, tech-savvy, publicity-seeking actor - who has gone chasing interviews. He is very much in his late 50s, I presume - which significantly reduces chances of finding any interviews with noted publications. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added information from previously unused source here [28] Editor 2050 (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:04, 15 September 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. Opinion is split over whether this article meets WP:NOTNEWS. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Buckingham Palace incident

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

This is a news item, and is not notable of inclusion of being on Wikipeida. Wikipeida appears to have a problem with recentism when it comes to articles involving incidents of this nature. There appears to be a jump to create articles, and to attribute labels to incidents, long before any of is has been established. The threshold for WP:Notability is not met here. There needs to be a halt to all these kinds of news articles, appearing as if they are somehow instantly notable. This is not notable, this is simply a news story.

There will be claims throughout the discussion of this incident, that this being part of the wider x or y or Z. This is not good enough to simply be claimed it must be shown by independent and reliable third party sources, demonstrating more than routine coverage. Simply shouting words does not make someone an extremist. Simply being a member of a religion and a criminal does not make someone a religious extremist. Simply attacking soldiers does not make an incident terrorism. Stating those things equal Radical Islamic Terrorism, is Original Research and is synthesis both of which are not allowed on Wikpedia. This article has a problem, it biggest problem is that it was created in the first place, as this is just routine coverage of a crime. Until further notability is established this has no place on Wikiepida. Sport and politics (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be possible to argue that the location of this incident makes it just about notable, but that may be stretching things. At present we don't know enough about the circumstances of what happened, the motive, the backgrounds of those involved, and so on, to comment on the nature of this incident, and it would have been better to have waited before creating an article. I agree that people are too quick to label these incidents as terrorism because someone shouted something or some individual is arrested or prosecuted under some aspect of terrorism law, and it's a debate we're going to need to have at some point in the not too distant future. How does Wikipedia describe these incidents, and when is it appropriate to create such an article are two important factors in that discussion. I am happy to add my thoughts if anyone is willing to start that debate at the appropriate place. This is Paul (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could it go in the list Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)? Obvious problem would be a lack of confirmation that it was an Islamist attack, although it seems likely. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LASTING as no long-term impact can be traced from sources in a WP:ROUTINE news cycle. I agree with Sport and politics: WP:RECENTISM is a major issue ignored by writers (many "experienced" longstanding wikipedians) even at the expense of almost every single guideline policing inclusion. This article, in addition to lasting, fails WP:EVENTCRIT which specifically mentions violent crimes are of interest to news media but not always Wikipedia. It needs historic or long-term importance, both of which are not established.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slick, Although LASTING impact is great, it is NOT required, and, of course, it is impossible to establish in a recent event. More to the point here is WP:NOTNEWS: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and less that 12 hours after creation of this page, the BBC announces today the suspect «remains in custody under suspicion of terror offences.»^[1]. Reuters says the same thing.^[2]. Guys, the international coverage on this story is significant (covered not just by British media but US [WSJ, Washington Post, et al.], Australia, France, Spain, etc). It is absolutely WP:CRYSTALBALL to presume that what as of almost a week later continues to be considered a terror investigation will be dismissed as a routine event. Come back after the investigation exonerates the attacker, and I will be the first to propose the encyclopaedic entry needs be deleted, but for the time being, there is no justification.XavierItzm (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41098988
^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-idUSKCN1BA24Y

The argument of Wait and see is the wrong way round. This is merely routine news coverage, a follow up on a crime is just that a follow up. Follow-ups by news organisations of news stories do not elevate events to a notable status. Sport and politics (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some users may think this is a crime. Yet the British government considers it terrorism. If terrorism in London is not notable, then what is? XavierItzm (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: If terrorism in London is not notable, then what is?, it depends on the terrorism, if the incident has no lasting impact or coverage, it isn't notable. Conversely, children stealing apples from their neighbour can become notable if for some reason there is lasting impact or extended coverage. There is no guideline saying that anything terrorist-related is automatically notable whereas stealing apples isn't. Incidentally he is provisionally charged with "preparing to commit an act … of terrorism". Pincrete (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per WP:RAPID. Wide coverage is continuing today (the 30th) - [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. Probably due to the sword(Jack Churchill anyone?). Current coverage is such that it should be kept - and if needed reassessed in a few months.Icewhiz (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz do you have a policy-based reason to keep? WP:RAPID is simply a recommendation and more of a cop-out to avoid discussing the major issues with the article. Per WP:RSBREAKING and WP:ROUTINE -- actual policies -- the media coverage does not signify notability. If sourcing with significant analysis weeks from now emerges, we can create a more thorough article, not a rehashing of media reports. This "let's wait" strategy does the encyclopedia no good and ignores the call for notability now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean BREAKING, which RAPID is a sub part (post creation). RSBREAKING asserts we should use later sources when available. Regarding ROUTINE - sword attacks in the modern UK are not routine (perhaps they were in the 16th century). Items that are front page news in the world or on a national level are not routine (they still might not be notable). Notability is determined by coverage, not opinion. In this case we have coverage, yet we do not know yet if it will be LASTING because enough time from the event did not pass, hence RAPID.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017, low casualty attack, although incident was considered terrorism, it was (presumably) a failed attack. Not every attack that occurs in Europe is suitable for a wikipedia article.JBergsma1 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyking I realize this is yet another lost cause by me in attempting to follow our policies, but could you at least take the time to write out a thoughtful vote? You simply rehashed "sources indicate notability" three times in rapid succession on AfDs. It instills zero confidence in me that you actually read other arguments, policies related to this type of incident, and the actual article itself. As an admin, shouldn't you be leading by example by upholding a high standard at all forums of Wikipedia? A refresher on our policies will show this falls under WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:LASTING, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:EVENTCRIT so sources do not indicate notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International coverage continuing today (31st) - Newsweek 9news.au Times of Israel Fox news USA Today - and much more (picked these at random from non-UK English sources). The sources are there. Frankly - this is exactly the sort of AfD where waiting makes sense - as ongoing high-profile coverage is continuing from the moment of the event clearling meeting WP:SIGCOV, the only concern is WP:LASTING due to age of event. 6 months from now? Maybe yes, maybe no - though the "sword angle" probably will at least preserve it as an oddity mention.Icewhiz (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is more general news coverage and not an establishment of notability. Waving news outlets and going look look international, when then internet is a thing, does not show the breadth of sources and independent verification required to establish independent notability. Three of the sources the Fox News, the 9news, and Times of Israel sources, simply re-published an AP/AFP news story.Sport and politics (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We again see the consequences of premature AFD: an inability to properly assess the sources. As of today 2 September, the sources include:
Sky News
Wall Street Journal
USA Today
BBC
The Telegraph
Metro
The Scottish Sun
The Washington Post
The Guardian
Reuters
Newsweek
AFP
New York Magazine
Paris Match
XavierItzm (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A list of news sources, routinely reporting a news story. There's a shock Sport and politics (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive national and international coverage of attack, sword, and indictment for terrorism meet WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extenisve is a stretch. Also jumping on a charge does not elevate to notable status Sport and politics (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::*WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)~~ my error, conflated this with the other current AfD where Sports and Politics is doing so. This claim is unfounded and disputed. Personal comments on personal user talk pages. Sport and politics (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments on personal user talk pages please. Accusations are not welcome. Sport and politics (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON is an appropriate point of caution to raise in a discussion such as this if that type of behaviour is prevalent. But I don't think anyone's reached the giddy heights of WP:BLUDGEON in this particular debate. This is Paul (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just added today's reported, WP:SIGCOV of this incident in the Wall Street Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should Note that there are shenanigans going on with this page, an editor is repeatedly removing both the reported article in today's Wall Street Journal and the newly emerged details sourced to it. And also removing details (like the fact that perp was an Uber driver who had intended to to attack Windsor Castle, but followed his GPS to the wrong address, a silly detail but one the the American press is having a field day with, Did you hear the one about the Uber driver who wanted to attack Windsor Castle with a sword and murder the Queen, but his GPS took him to this pub called Windsor Castle so dude ended up attacking... ) but editor is also removing significant information released by police, such as information from his laptop and note to his family establishing that this was jihad/Islamism inspired terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto I presume Gregory is not-so-cleverly referring to you. Do you wish to respond to these allegations which, I must remind Gregory, have no place at an AfD? I should also remind Gregory he is just building another case for ANI with his muddying of yet another AfD discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up TheGracefulSlick, I was just editing my response as you wrote that. -- de Facto (talk). 21:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @E.M.Gregory: no, I reverted your controversial changes per WP:BRD, and asked you to discuss them on the talk page before reinstating them. You ignored my request and reinstated much of your controversial edit anyway, and even worse, you characterised my edit as vandalism! -- de Facto (talk). 20:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Finally coming down on the side of delete after several days of careful consideration. This article fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:SYNTH. It simply shouldn't be here. This is Paul (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017. Insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article; fails WP:NOTNEWS. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extensive international and national coverage for this. Good sources. Article is in good shape as well.BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA this is an unremarkable news event: the most we can say is that a man was apparently stopped by police and put up a bit of a struggle whilst being arrested. The press interest is possibly because of the headline possibilities made available by the incident having took place near Buckingham Palace and the arrested man apparently having a sword in his car. But will the incident have enduring historical significance or a significant lasting effect? Unlikely, at best. -- de Facto (talk). 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, "we can say" what a WP:RS do say, which is that perp "deliberately drove into police officers near Buckingham Palace" in a failed vehicle-ramming attack that was stopped by police, that he pulled a sword on the arresting officers, and that his actions are being investigated as terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fox is the only source claiming that he "drove into" anyone, least of all 'police officers' (pretty obviously they would have been seriously injured if he had). Most sources report that he 'drove at' a stationary police van, but stopped in front of it. No mention of police stopping him (bit hard to stop a large moving vehicle with your bare hands). Maybe there was an intention to ram the van but he 'bottled out', maybe we don't know so Fox invented a story it preferred. Fox also doesn't seem to notice that it is difficult to "pull a sword" when in the driving seat of a car. Most sources record "reached for a sword" which was under the passenger seat, at which point he was 'overcome' by the three police. We usually try to record what the balance of best sources say, not embellish the worst. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per [34], he reached for what we now know to be a 4ft sword which was in the front passenger footwell. - So not under the seat, in front of the seat. It is actually to pull a 4-foot sword (which is on the short side) quite quickly - had he stepped out of the car - however it is pretty useless considering he (it seems) remained seated inside the car. Either way - the actual attempt to use a sword (as well as the ineptness in navigating/executing and Uber involvement) - will probably generate more coverage to the already quite substantial coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which car can a rigid 4 foot long anything be in the passenger footwell without a goodly part of it being under the seat, (unless they mean 'propped up')? In which car can someone sitting in the driver seat 'brandish', 'swing' or 'draw' any 4 foot long rigid object? I'm glad you acknowledge this is silly-story territory, personally I secretly hope this is a 'keep', since it will advertise how absurd WP practice has become on terrorism articles. Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width? Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Notability, of course, can come from any angle, even Uber. Here is Sarah Baxter, The Sunday Times: That’s the last time Uber gives me the runaround [35].E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else. 100s of sources repeating exactly the same mildly funny story is no substitute for extended, in-depth coverage, even the police aren't sure whether this is terrorism. There will of course be some lasting impact, since the event is almost guaranteed to feature in end-of-year quizzes (about the Satnav Samurai or the Lost Samurai who got Castled on his way Uber to the Palace? ... No? Well there's a lot of time between now and Dec 31st 2017!). Pincrete (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is no hurry. Every article can't be a FA class-article but there are enough sources for stub-class article. Greenbörg (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The condition and size of an article are irrelevant to the issues with notability. I keep seeing arguments that "there is no hurry"; true, if we're talking about clean-up but there is a bit of a hurry for the subject to be notable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This topic will never be notable, and I doubt anything's going to change that, so there's no hurry to do anything, except perhaps delete yet another article that was created far too soon. This is Paul (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. The fact is that there is a remarkable amount of reporting on the page now, not echoes, WP:SIGCOV]] by papers on this side of the pond, like the Wall Street Journal. And while no recent WPNCRIME can meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA: WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WPLASTING , the sourcing already on the page more than meets [[ WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you brought up those policies. WP:GEOSCOPE notes coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article; instead a significant impact on a large region is required. What was that region -- the suspect's car? To pass WP:INDEPTH, a subject needs analysis which has not been found in these WP:ROUTINE reports. WP:DIVERSE is not met when sources simply repeat the same narrative. So basically you have proven this incident fails every single point laid out by WP:EVENTCRIT...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or, if this is kept, turn Wikipedia into a news site rather than an encyclopedia. News reports are regarded everywhere outside Wikipedia as primary sources, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, Like ALL articles on recent events, this one one is sourced to WP:RS news media. Books and academic articles may well follow, but are they not required.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear E.M., like most articles on recent events this is a news report rather than an encyclopedia article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see a clear consesus to delete or keep. I still think this event is notable per WP:NEVENT. I don't agree with IP because we write here with encyclopedic point of view whereas on WikiNews we write as news story. Greenbörg (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does read like a news story. Just remove the headers and you have a poor man's version of a CNN or New York Times piece. There were two keep voters who said "good sources" (very broad and mostly untrue if we care to follow anything from WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RSBREAKING, etc.); another common response was WP:RAPID but those voters ignored the remainder of EVENTCRIT -- the actual meat of the policy. Since AfD is not a majority vote and any admin will notice the issues I identified here, yes, there is a clear consensus: it is to delete this article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, several sources indicate notability with national and international coverage. D8jang (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"notability with national and international coverage" = Many newspapers printed almost the same story on the first day(s) with no 'follow up' or depth = almost perfect definition of a news story, completely lacking significance or impact. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, your assertion is inaccurate. Independently reported articles ran in major publications on at least three continents. The independently reported WP:INDEPTH coverage in the Wall Street Journal that ran a week after the initial attack, and article that you tried very hard to delete as a source on non policy-based grounds, and the reporting by the Dhaka Tribune on perp's birthplace and bio are particularly good examples of the WP:SIGCOV. Moreover, there were at least two news cycles that generated worldwide coverage, the first spurred first by the attack itself, then by the black humor angle uber-driver-on-jihad-fails-to-google-up-directions-to-the-right-palace. You are entitled to you own opinion, but not to your own facts.(quoting Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest ref used saying anything about this incident is 27th August, the newest is 8th September,Dhaka Tribune! I think that is legitimately "the first day(s) with no 'follow up' or depth", if you really want to stretch it to "the first -nearly- two weeks with no 'follow up' or depth", be my guest. If the coverage were 'in depth', why is the article so desperately thin? What might the lasting impact be I wonder, perhaps it will get harder to buy Samurai swords in Luton, maybe the pub will get increased trade, end of year quizzes are a near certainty. Are they your idea of 'in-depth coverage'? Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no lasting significance or societal impact; it's clear at this point. The lead of the article states:

"The police officers were slightly injured whilst making the arrest."

This is an incident insufficiently notable for the encyclopedia; does not meet WP:10YT. I'm not buying the argument that because it took place in London, we must include it. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This was run-of-the-mill news, people break into Buckingham Palace grounds all the time. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting repercussions or notability, can perhaps be included in a larger article but not as a stand alone. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of terrorist incidents in London - No huge lasting impacts. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 11 years 19:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To this point: it can't be merged. On the List of terrorist incidents in London, two editors persistently delete^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] the Buckingham Palace attack entry because «only suspected to be terrorism related, needs a court verdict to confirm it was». Observe the 3RR rule is not even followed. So if the resolution is merge, then editors are on standby to simply memory-hole the whole entry, sources and all.XavierItzm (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing "routine" or "run-of-the-mill" about a terrorist incident outside Buckingham Palace. NOTNEWS does not apply in this case.Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- probably could be added to List of terrorist incidents in London, but not notable enough to deserve its own page at all. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a Wikipedia entry for all the other incidents in "Category:Terrorist incidents in London in 2017." Soperd (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing seems to have made this any more notable since I last posted in this discussion, so it's still a delete for me. Perhaps we can merge with List of terrorist incidents in London. Or what about something like List of Buckingham Palace security breaches (along the lines of the the one we have for the White House)? I can think of at least three other incidents in recent years that could be mentioned in such an article, and I guess this is probably worth a brief mention somewhere. This is Paul (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Case remains in the news media as of mid-September: with the latest terror attack at Parsons Green, the media lists the Buckingham Palace sword attack among the recent «stream of terror attacks» in the UK.^[6] I think the point of an encyclopaedia is that you are reading something, say, a newspaper, and perhaps you don't know what they are talking about, and you go to Wikipedia, and boom, guess what? There is an article about that "Buckingham Palace" terror incident! Now you know. XavierItzm (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor that as XavierItzam points out, proposals to merge terrorism-related incidents are often merely stealth deletions. When an editor closes a terrorist attack with the suggestion as keep with the suggestion the decision whether to merge or keep can be discussed at the article's talk page, deletionist editors will attempt to delete by will open a merge discussion, which is likely to draw fewer editors than and AfD (a recent example is 2017 Notre Dame attack). However, when an article on a terrorism attack is closed as merge, deletionist editors at the lists to which incidents are merged either argue that only bluelinked incident should be kept, or that a particular incident is not adequately verified as terrorism (as here) or that too few people were killed, and delete it. That is why the decision should be based on WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG, and by the same standards by which we judge recent breaking news stories such as the 2017 University of Utah Hospital incident.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-sourced article on a matter that attracted interest well beyond national borders. Passes WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB actually when an incident such as this falls under WP:NOT, it doesn't meet GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POINT ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No argument whatsoever provided, and is ascribing a motive. This is is no way anything other the a !vote Sport and politics (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A notvote is not an official policy, but WP:point is. WP:point states that you should not disrupt WP to make a point. I think you are disrupting WP to make a point, and therefore I think that all of your contributions to articles related to terrorism should be held under strict scrutiny, and when necessary wholly dismissed as disruptive and unproductive. Your motive is clearly established by the excessive amounts of circumstantial evidence available showing that you do in fact go around WP attempting to remove terrorism related content to make a point, effectively accepting that you cannot get the content you don't like removed through one means, and trying to get it removed via another. I'll note you have been entirely ineffective in your XFD attempts, that being because you are only editing to make a WP:point or otherwise you just don't like WP covering terrorism, for whatever personal reasons. But, yeah. And you don't need to accuse anyone of notvotes because the closing party will surely be able to analyze the content themselves. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A way to sum this up is, your past disruptive behavior has led to the burden of proof being raised for your XFDs, because good faith cannot be assumed in your contributions to articles of this topic. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sport, You nominated, what, about 20 was it? Islamist terrorist attacks for deletion in one fall swoop a couple of weeks ago. Did all of the others close as keep? I seem to recall that they did. And your justification for the nomination of this one was a WP:POINTY rant:

"This is a news item, and is not notable of inclusion of being on Wikipeida. Wikipeida appears to have a problem with recentism when it comes to articles involving incidents of this nature.' There appears to be a jump to create articles, and to attribute labels to incidents, long before any of is has been established. The threshold for WP:Notability is not met here. There needs to be a halt to all these kinds of news articles, appearing as if they are somehow instantly notable. This is not notable, this is simply a news story. There will be claims throughout the discussion of this incident, that this being part of the wider x or y or Z. This is not good enough to simply be claimed it must be shown by independent and reliable third party sources, demonstrating more than routine coverage. Simply shouting words does not make someone an extremist. Simply being a member of a religion and a criminal does not make someone a religious extremist. Simply attacking soldiers does not make an incident terrorism. Stating those things equal Radical Islamic Terrorism, is Original Research and is synthesis both of which are not allowed on Wikpedia. This article has a problem, it biggest problem is that it was created in the first place, as this is just routine coverage of a crime."

I note in particular that your asssertions are false. In particular, the editors who regularly work on articles about terrorist attacks, editors who have iVoted both ways above, are extremely careful not accuse perps of terrorism until and unless they have written manifestos, recorded pledges ot ISIS, been described as ISIS by security authorities, and so forth. It is true that new and occassional editors add such material, but it is rapidly removed. Moreover, this article, and the others that have been kept, have been reliably sourced. And your assertion that ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia made no valid argument is similarly false, WP:POINTY is an excellent argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on failing to focus on the nomination, it is clearly not point, the numerous and in depth deletion arguments forwarded show POINT is an ad homenim. I do wish Gregory and friends would avoid doing their shtick of go after nominators and people who disagree with them , and crawl out of the gutter. Sport and politics (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be prudent to stick to the subject on hand, and it also would be nice if we avoided claiming Keep voters are coming from the gutter, which seems a bit personal (I do think I took a shower in the past year). Regarding the POINT raised, this: AFD stats for 15 last Sport and politics noms - and the time spent on some of them - speaks volumes.Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add this to a long history of claiming false persecution when people disagree with you, and refusing to communicate or cooperate in discussion and instead "rage quitting". I have really taken steps to avoid controversial subjects on WP (focusing on vandalism and NPR), but your behavior is so consistently inconsistent with what WP is all about. Somehow you have avoided bans or at least a topic ban for terrorism despite consistently being reported, but you are clearly not here to build a wiki, in my informed opinion. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory and BabbaQ. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reading new comments and news articles relating Parsons Green incident, I'll say this article deserves a separate entry. Clearly, not WP:MILL. Greenbörg (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles is plural and the 'mention' in the 'Indy' is errrrr a textbook example of a 'mention', not 'in-depth' coverage. Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep come back in December. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1, I'll bite, why? What is your opinion on notability right now for this minor botched attack with no indication of a lasting historical significance?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:21, 23 September 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 would recommend somebody creates an RfC on the notability of terrorist incidents, as there seem to be quite a few turning up to AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017 Brussels attack

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

This is a news item, and is not notable of inclusion of being on Wikipeida. Wikipeida appears to have a problem with recentism when it comes to articles involving incidents of this nature. There appears to be a jump to create articles, and to attribute labels to incidents, long before any of is has been established. The threshold for WP:Notability is not met here. There needs to be a halt to all these kinds of news articles, appearing as if they are somehow instantly notable. This is not notable, this is simply a news story.

There will be claims throughout the discussion of this incident, that this being part of the wider x or y or Z. This is not good enough to simply be claimed it must be shown by independent and reliable third party sources, demonstrating more than routine coverage. Simply shouting words does not make someone an extremist. Simply being a member of a religion and a criminal does not make someone a religious extremist. Simply attacking soldiers does not make an incident terrorism. Stating those things equal Radical Islamic Terrorism, is Original Research and is synthesis both of which are not allowed on Wikpedia. This article has a problem, it biggest problem is that it was created in the first place, as this is just routine coverage of a crime. Until further notability is established this has no place on Wikiepida. Sport and politics (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Saying the mayor of Venice said snipers will shoot those who shout "Allahu Akbar" with-in 4 paces ([36]) the day before would be OR (well - not quite - it has been mentioned in joint coverage of the two). However - this specific event generated international coverage which continues - coverage runs through the event until yesterday (the 29th - when the Belgian General commanding the ground forces said this attack will influence tactics). Decisions regarding notability should be based on coverage, particularly in a WP:RAPID event - and not on what editors think should or should not be notable.Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're neglecting NOTNEWS at their own peril, and so editors are welcome to write up every little thing that suits their fancy, inviting completely undue coverage of the world. I will lend my voice to the nominator's, crying out in the desert. Delete: we're not the news, this is not big news, no lasting consequences, etc. Yes, all such things are world events, for a day and a half. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Terrorist attack claimed by ISIS via the ISIS-mouthpiece Amaq News Agency regarded by security experts as accurate in identifying which attacks are carried out by its own devotees. Belgian authorities calling it terrorism. More to the point for our purposes, coverage has been worldwide, possibly because there is nothing "routine" about a dedicated follower of the Islamic State ideology of violent jihad, carrying a Quran and shouting Allahu Akbr attacking soldiers patrolling the Grand Place, the heart of Brussels. NOTNEWS is a Red herring. Note - I forgot to add that this article meets WP:NCRIME, and that it is entirely usual to create articles about breaking news crime stories that are receiving international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017, Incident is too small for an article. There were two soldiers that suffered (light) injuries in a stabbing attack. I would understand the significance for an article if it was a bomb attack with two injuries. Bombings are less common in Europe and need more planning and preparation. But since this was a low-casualty stabbing attack with only two victims I suggest this article to be merged.JBergsma1 (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly passes WP:NEVENTS with widespread coverage for this event. Greenbörg (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it lives up to the WP:GNG general notability guideline. Since this attack was claimed by ISIS, it is thus an event of international scope. It has enough coverage in sources to merit a standalone article. Brief mentions could be added to relevant list articles. AadaamS (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator complains about Radical Islamic Terrorism. This is nowhere in the article itself.
The nominator complains about extremism. This is nowhere in the article itself.
The nominator complains about WP:OR. If there were an issue with WP:OR, AfD would not be the correct venue to manage it.
In sum, there appears to something quite strange about the nomination itself.
In any event, article sources meet WP:SIGCOV and all other usual requirements, so it should be kept. XavierItzm (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017 as an alternative to deletion. Wikipedia is not news; fails WP:NEWS and the WP:10YR test. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of terrorist incidents in August 2017, there's not really enough material to justify its own article separate from the others, all the sources are too recent. It's basic routine stuff that happens when some nut job extremist acts. Wikipedia isn't news and this seems way too much like it.★Trekker (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To list of terrorist incidents in August 2017. WP:NOTNEWS becomes increasingly obvious when the very articles writers hastily push to mainspace look more and more like news reports rather than encyclopedic content. Failing WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:DIVERSE, and certainly WP:LASTING also does not help establish any claim of notability. Thankfully, there is a list to redirect to if this actually developes notability in the future. A good idea for any writer is to wait until the subject becomes notable, then create an article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly I would note that the existence of an article in another language Wikipedia is utterly irrelevant. And then this is clearly a news report rather than an encyclopedia article. Before we can write an encyclopedia article we need secondary sources, rather than just news reports, which by any definition outside Wikipedia are primary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, Like ALL articles on recent events, this one one is sourced to WP:RS news media. Books and academic articles may well follow, but are they not required.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear E.M., like most articles on recent events this is a news report rather than an encyclopedia article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

On the flip side in my opinion this clearly fails WP:BREAKING. Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which says don't rush to create AND don't rush to delete (besides stipulating the currentevent tag). This article has on-going high-profile coverage (as of the nom - which I added after I saw the nom). There's no harm in it lingering here - this is a clear case of WP:WAIT - in 3-6 months it'll be much easier to assert significance or non-significance. When a current event is clearly non-significant it is easy to delete - otherwise, letting it wait a while makes supporting a D much easier (as instead of arguing whether coverage will continue - you simply see a lack of coverage).Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a failure here as the article is not meeting notability, it is all speculatio. I suggest that the 'high-profile' coverage is made clear, as that is highly subjective as a claim. Sport and politics (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The attack itself (day of, next day, day2) - was an international news item (covered by a huge number of world-class sources, as well as filtering down to local news outside of Belgium). General Thuys statments were picked up by Reuters and Euronews yesterday.^[7]^[8] So we have coverage by world-class sources from the 25th to the 29th. The 30th is still young at this point. So we're left at crystall-balling at the level of coverage going forward, as at present - we have coverage (including a change in Belgium's military tactics, which would be another claim of a significance beyond coverage).Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have usually kept similar articles. For example, the very similar: 2016 stabbing of Charleroi police officers, 2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers (KEPT after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 stabbing of Brussels police officers), and June 2017 Brussels attack, not to mention numbers of very similar articles on similar incidents in France and elsewhere.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OtherStuffExists, each article must meet the inclusion criteria independently, and WP:EVENTCRIT which specifically mentions violent crimes are of interest to news media but not always Wikipedia. Artilces historic or long-term importance, both of which are not established here. Sport and politics (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Come on. Saying NOTNEWS is a red herring is the real red herring, and larding this with detail is salacious. The very detail you cite is in fact completely routine. We all know you have a fondness for writing up such events and tend to look at only one side of a conflict. I just noticed Louvre machete attack, where you cleverly present events that happened before the attack in an "Aftermath" section, allowing you to argue (again) that the event was notable because...well, because of SYNTH. And that event wasn't much different from this one, so I don't see how you can claim "not routine"--but hey, to each his own. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Paris machete attack was kept. Because this was an attack on the Grand Place, you have a point in asserting that the two articles are similar. As for SYNTH, you seem not to have noticed that section was sourced to the Wall Street Journal's coverage of the Louvre attack Louvre Attack Casts Chill on Tourists. As to your assertion that I see "only one side" of terrorist attacks on innocent people walking across the Grand Place or into the Louvre, that is true. Terrorism is evil. Because WP:NOTNEWS refers to "routine" events and announcements, citing it is a red herring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The moment you stop this rhetorical bending, this twisting of other people's words, you will find that the world is a much nicer place than you thought. We're not in debate society anymore; you don't score points by adding little zingers. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." This is what WP:NOTNEWS states. And is a longstanding practice on WP to create articles on major events as they happen: Hurricane Harvey as it hits Houston; Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville; and this terrorist attack in Brussels.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This event is neither of those events, which are in and of themselves notable events. This is a routine news reporting of an event which occurred. This does not come close in anyway to the two articles cited, which have significant and historic impact and are inherently notable. This is none of those things. Sport and politics (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We keep articles on lots of events: Boston Free Speech Rally, 74th World Science Fiction Convention, Callaway train crash, Townville Elementary School shooting that are far from historic. As NOTNEWS says "we are not a paper soruce." Merely, you and I differ on whether an ISIS attack on Brussels is a "significant event."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of the four articles state on the top of their talk pages they have been nominated for deletion with the result being keep. The other two do not indicate ever having been nominated for deletion, please show if they other two have been nominated for deletion. I suggest there is a stopping of grasping at straws, and a realisation that notability for individual articles must be established. Not everything in the media is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. This is one of those things which at the moment is no where near notable enough and does not warrant inclusion on wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a page on this attack exists on Wikipedia in French.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2017 (

Note that I reponded to this point but another editor moved my response above. The flow of this discussion has been broken by an unnecessary "discussion" section being added (this whole discussion is obviously a discussion), and too many people have responded for me to be able to fix that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's a rather pointless section break, just as you say. I've changed the source code so that it no longer breaks up the Afd discussion when it appears on deletion sorting pages. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It would clearly passes WP:NEVENTS sction with widespread coverage, national and international news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D8jang (talk • contribs) 04:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough to deserve its own page. Content could possibly be merged onto a page on the broader topic, if one exists. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Copy-paste was used to nominate both Buckingham Palace and this article within minutes of e.a. other. Perhaps the same WP:POINTy issues raised there of late should be considered here? XavierItzm (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with XavierItzm on this point. As detailed by several editors towards the end of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Buckingham Palace incident discussion, Nom has been WP:DISRUPTING the project by making a large number of WP:POINTy nominations. They close as keep after wasting a great deal of editorial time, although if the purpose is to make WP a BATTLEGROUND and discourage editors from participating, it may succeed in accomplishing that.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Nom's rationale for deleting was a false assertion that Islamist terrorism is being asserted groundlessly here, when, in fact, it is well-sourced. Revisiting, I continue to support keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was that really their only assertion or are you just cherry picking? What about other editors who don't have your view? Are they all wrong too for following policy?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: we're not the news, this is not big news, no lasting consequences, etc. Yes, all such things are world events, for a day and a half per Drmies, not the smallest sign of lasting significance or coverage in depth, half of the text is about other events with no clear connection to this one.Pincrete (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC) ..... ps I think we have several mentions of the accused's man's "middle-eastern theological connections", but no mention of what happened to him (I believe he was shot dead). Pincrete (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it is an abuse of the AfD process to try to use it to amend perceived notions of weakness in the article. Under your rationale that one of the grounds for deletion is «no mention of what happened to him», then please follow WP:BEFORE. BTW, the article clearly records the death of the attacker, and in fact the very first WP:RS cited in the article (i.e., citation 1) is: "Belgian soldiers shoot dead knife attacker in Brussels."^[9]. XavierItzm (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My delete rationale is clearly stated, that there is no significance, consequence or in-depth coverage of this event, none is even claimed beyond "15 minutes of fame" and the implication that any terrorist event is inherently worthy of its own article. A para in a list article would adequately cover everything which is not blatant WP:OR here. Do you understand 'ps'? Since the 'ps' is clearly not part of my delete rationale, how can its content be an abuse of anything?

One should not need to look inside a ref to learn a basic fact of an event such as a death, but those who are so quick to impugn the motives of others here who question the value of this article, betray their own PoV by failing to mention the death - while simultaneously ensuring that "ethnic and theological connections" are stated repeatedly. ..... pps Why would anyone shoot a dead knife attacker? Sounds a bit overkill to me! Perhaps that's why we don't rely on headlines hidden away inside refs to do our work for us! Pincrete (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reebok Big Time

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

No references. The tournament doesn't appear to be notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Not notable~~ Nihal Thalassery (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC) (vote struck for sockpuppetry by Power~enwiki (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 16 September 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Silva

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

Not a notable person. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite all the sources, it seems that he fails WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate what your reasoning is. Boston499344 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable person under private equity and veterans. Sky4988 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't find much in a before. Sourcing here is mainly low quality or random quotes.Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional vehicles

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

This article's last 2 deletion attempts ended in no consensus, with most of the Keep arguments arguing that the article can be "saved" using sources. However, nobody has stepped up to the plate in the last 7 years and the article is just as unreferenced as it was before. It's obvious now that it is WP:LISTCRUFT and is better served as a self maintaining category, e.g. Category:Fictional vehicles. As it is now, membership on the list is totally arbitrary and completely random, stating such things as any time a vehicle appears in a movie._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this appears to be a valid list article. Membership should be completely clear: every Wikipedia page on a fictional vehicle is included on the page. Things like "A hovercraft - used by the girls in Despicable Me: Minion Mayhem" should be removed. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Power~enwiki:Comment Just because it only has links to other articles doesn't make it "valid". Per WP:LISTCRUFT - "The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category."_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a standard WP:LISTOFLISTS article, which are accepted throughout Wikipedia, as well as being useful reference articles to keep information handy and in one place. Any cleanup required can be done by editing; AfD is not cleanup. WP:LIST articles always exist in addition to and along with Categories; one never precludes the other and both are encouraged. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Softlavender:Comment Is this essentially not a keep argument, but an argument to move the article to Lists of fictional vehicles? Because as it stands, it's not a list of lists, it's a list of items. That does bring up a point that this article is probably over-extensive, per WP:OLIST, and may be better off just holding other lists of fictional vehicles. I wouldn't be opposed to making it solely a list of lists._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - My !vote is a Keep !vote. This is an AfD, not a debate about the article title. If you want to propose a change of title, the venue/procedure for that is WP:RM. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Softlavender:I wasn't aware that you could only vote keep and not additionally add an argument to change the title and scope of the article. I've seen it done plenty of times in other AFDs before, as a condition of the keep._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, if you want to propose a change of title, the venue/procedure for that is WP:RM. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem being that if I proposed a title change, that failed, and the article remained, I'd have to open a new AfD all over again as it's Listcruft in its current state. I'd rather garner a consensus for something in the context of "this shouldn't exist if it's left in its current state"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        My !vote is a Keep !vote. If you want to propose a change of title, the venue/procedure for that is WP:RM. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep doesn't seem much point to this. Artw (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Spurious votes don't help your case, this does not meet any criteria for speedy keeps unless you are suggesting that previous "no consensus" votes are enough to shut down any AfD in the future._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There just isn't any kind of decent deletion rationale here that explains why deleting the article makes Wikipedia a better place. Artw (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:HARMLESS, not deleting articles of questionable value, set a precedent for pretty much anything to be created, as people will get the idea that it will be kept by editors who just "like it". Ultimately I don't think this article is necessary - there are several more granular lists about various types of vehicles, but not enough to make a list of lists. It's overly broad and will likely overlap greatly with the other lists._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:LISTN for lack of sources that discuss this subject as a group. The appropriate Category:Fictional vehicles already exists and handles the readers' navigational needs quite well. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list needs a little re-organisation so as to separate classes of vehicle (e.g. Hoverboards) from specific vehicles (e.g. Hogwarts Express), but that's trivial and not a reason for deletion. The notability criteria just need to be explicitly stated - a blue link to an article specifically discussing that (class of) vehicle. AfD is not cleanup. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Fictional vehicles. Also a functional information page and navigational aid as per WP:LISTPURP, with 1,292 page views in the last thirty days. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 22 September 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. If you want the article userfied for you, drop me a note on my talk page/ Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MrBossFTW

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

I'm unaware that there is a clause in WP:GNG which says that anyone with lots of social media subscribers is notable enough for Wikipedia. Almost all the citations in this article relate to the briefest of namechecks in tech articles about a GTA 5 update. His leak of a license/serial key was again only briefly mentioned in a single sentence. The substantive 'coverage' is self published on YouTube or Twitter. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the bit about the license key MTV wrote an entire article about ([37]) and Kotaku did provide coverage of it, listing him as a notable example ([38]). (In the MTV article) While he is only mentioned by name once, but it is clear that the rest of the article is talking about him. Also, International Business Times has showcased his content multiple times, discussing his videos and other news regarding GTA 5 updates (in google I was able to find dozens of examples, like [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] - and those were only the first two pages of results). Additionally, how is the majority of the coverage self-published? Only 4 of the 28 sources are from YouTube ([47][48][49][50])(two of which is for stats on YouTube - even PewDiePie has those - i.e. [51]) and 1 from Twitter ([52]) which was a screenshot of a stats screen) for a date. If you would like the bit about his channel growth removed or have the one YouTube citation there (or Twitter/YouTube one in info box) replaced with {{fact}}/{{citation needed}} templates, I would happily do that. As for the "briefest of namecheck" bit, the only references matching the "namecheck" bit slightly were The Guardian (but would consider it listing him as a notable example), Morning News USA (but they reference an article mentioning him in more detail - sort of as a summary I guess?), and Blasting News (this one discusses his content for 3-4 paragraphs - or roughly 30% of the article). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You almost seem to be agreeing with me, but coming to the opposite conclusion. I'd go as far to say, as well as not meeting WP:GNG, this is a WP:ONEEVENT instance. Sionk (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In most of the sources provided, they seem to be less about him, and more about Grand Theft Auto 5, or his own first party sources. I'm not sure which of these is supposed to prove it meets the GNG... Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as although this isn't usually my field subject, I'm inclined to believe that there may be enough for an article relevant to the video games subject. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones do you feel help meet the GNG in particular? Not sure what's fueling your inclination here... Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping - SwisterTwister. Can you clarify? Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is not as strong of an article as we usually examine, but for the subject, I know there are often some leniencies on what can be considered enough. I wouldn't object to a Userification. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister - I don't mean to badger you, but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. It's so vague you could literally say that about any article in existence. That sounded more like you were answering a question about how AFD works in general. That doesn't explain your stance on this particular subject at all. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the refspamming above does not prove notability. The MTV article is extremely short (5-6 sentences) and is mostly about the foolish act of publicly showing an activation code and getting it stolen in the process. Not exactly a detailed bio here. Most of the rest of the sources listed are not significant coverage about him - they're articles about Grand Theft Auto 5 that essentially use him as a source. For example, many of the sources spammed above are like this one. This source does not provide significant coverage about "MrBossFTW". If you read it, you see its says almost nothing about him. It's all about tips about playing GTA5, some of which are from him. This is not how we prove notability on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These sources seem enough to warrant an article about him. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adityavagarwal Which sources in particular help the subject meet the WP:GNG? As I pointed out, most are not actually focused around the subject. Please don't just automatically believe someone just because they slap 15 links in their statement. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources to me all seem to be a matter of name-dropped but not in-depth coverage from what otherwise as the secondary sources. If there's a list of well known YouTube streamers (which we'd have to be very careful with), he'd be on it, but not as a standalone. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: The only list that I am aware of myself is List of YouTubers, but it requires that the entities (be they individuals or another type of channel) have a Wikipedia page or they would be reverted. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer In the event that it is deemed the consensus to be that this article is not worthy of inclusion at this time, I request that a deletion alternative (userfying or moving back to draft namespace) be taken into consideration so that in the event that more coverage is discovered or written, the draft could have this information added to it and be resubmitted to AfC. In the event that that is the chosen course of action, I would not move it to the article namespace myself and would take the AfC route. I will continue to monitor for information at this time and will continue to do so for the remainder of the time that I am an editor on this site (the foreseeable future). In the event that nothing comes up by the end of that time, I would simply request deletion. Of course, if that is not ruled the consensus (that this article is not worthy of inclusion at this time) by the end of this discussion, please disregard this comment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To answer the question I think you were making in your nomination, Sionk, a large number of subscribers on its own is no grounds for establishing notability. I have written an essay on the subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability and am seeking an edit to WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES to say "Though YouTube subscriber counts do not contribute to a subject's notability, most YouTubers with fewer than 1,000,000 subscribers and no other other claim to notability have not received sufficient coverage to be kept at AfD." Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references are all of mentions of him, or feature him. None were about him. Fails WP:GNG. Rightly or wrongly, common outcomes do not support subscriber count on its own as a measure of a large fan base or cult following under #2 of WP:ENT - see my comment above and link to essay. Unfortunately perhaps, YouTubers seldom gain much attention from the mainstream media. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any in-dept coverage in the sources, only passing mentions. That's not enough to pass WP:GNG or warrant a article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage about MrBossFTW to meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sergecross and CSC. --Izno (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage of the subject, just passing mentions. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG as articulated repeatedly above. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:20, 22 September 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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Vaidya

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

The person in question is a research director at Kasturba Health society. A search on him reveals two biographical profiles ([53],[54]). One seems to be self written and other written by a former student. He has no significant publications to his name. Nor do any news reports show up regarding his work or the claims. (not to be confused with Ashok Vaidya, vada pav vendor). Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is notable in my opinion as he has coined the terms like 'Reverse Pharmacology'. I tried to make edits on the article of Reverse Pharmacology also but they are saying that it has a different meaning so it is disputable. He is the only person I know who has done this amount of substantial contribution in the research of Ayurveda. It is true that he is a research director at Kasturba Health Society, Mumbai. I am delighted to know that a search on him reveals two biographical profiles. As I was aware of only one profile. This profile I know. Thanks a lot for sharing this very important profile. This second profile is new to me and I am happy that you have shared a profile / link which was not known to me. Is this profile present in the main article itself? If no, may I request you to kindly give the link of this reference in the article? I will do it if I get time myself but in the meanwhile if you can get time, it is a request to add that particular link in the article. Thank you again for sharing a very important link.-- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a 5-year-old stub. There has been plenty of time to turn it into an article, yet it's still a stub. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IMPATIENT Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 17 in a highly cited field is not enough for WP:Prof. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not enough academic impact to pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If one will see the concept of 'Reverse Pharmacology', which is such a revolutionary concept in the filed of herbal medicine, we will understand importance of this person. Reverse pharmacology means finding the active ingredients from the drugs which are already in use without testing. Meaning these are the drugs for which animal testing / preclinical studies are not done and they are already in use. Can we understand its meaning? It means that these drugs are dangerous as they can damage any organ of anyone anytime and it can also create any unknown adverse reactions. But no one ready to leave those drugs including governments. What is better way to solve this problem in your opinion? Dr. Vaidya came with this concept of reverse pharmacology which is the best solution in this scenario. I would like some person who knows pharmacology decide about this. I will request some people who are experts in this field to comment here. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bluerasberry, may I request you to kindly comment here? -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doc James, may I request you to kindly comment here? -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first ref is written by the person not about the person. Do they have significant media coverage? This ref also does not mention their name[55] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional and strange; fails GNG and PROF. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and as noted above h-index is low to pass WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How much h index is considered notable? May I know if there are any guidelines for the same? Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Typically we expect to see an existing biography cited. Wikipedia should not publish anyone's first biography; instead Wikipedia should be summarizing the biography or profiles written by others. Right now, I do not see any biography or profile in the citations.

There are some exceptions, like for example sometimes publications report that a person has received awards but do not publish their biography or if the person is highly cited. At WP:PROF there is some discussion of what this means. There is not a particular line or text, but instead, someone who wants to argue that a person is highly cited should show some of their papers, give information about how they are cited, and say how that amount of citations compare with other researchers in that field. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance Doc James and Bluerasberry. I will make modifications accordingly. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:00, 22 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA to the nucleus

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

This page is largely unnecessary. It has no references and the subject matter is already discussed in parent articles. A delete is probably the best bet. Though, a merge would suffice. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Merge if there is anything not already in the endosymbiosis article) - it is a question that is discussed from time to time in the scientific literature, but that doesn't mean the best way to deal with it in Wikipedia is to have a separate article. There should be a section in the endosymbiosis article that covers 1) presumed transfer of various functional metabolic genes now found in nucleus, 2) presence of pseudogene copies of part of mt or cpDNA in nucleus, and 3) that there seems some limit to complete transfer, as there are no known cases of organelle-containing organisms without an organellar genome. It is too arcane a topic to merit a stand-alone article. It is part and parcel of the endosymbiotic process, and the only thing noteworthy about it, why it doesn't go to completion, has no answer. Once answered it will likely only become less worthy of a stand-alone article. Agricolae (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully agree. It warrants a small section/mention in the endosymbiosis article. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 07:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsensical and hypothetical personal WP:ESSAY. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ESSAY --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete bizarre, no reliable sources discussing this. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if possible, merge. The information contents like Numt and CoRR hypothesis should be included in the "parent-article" (Endosymbiont?). As well, the title is big, perhaps only because the user did not knew/ forgot there is a term for it, "promiscuous DNA". I could not find yet any article or paragraph with this exact term. So I think this article for deletion certainly have some content to contribute. We should take the information content and the list of theories into existing Wikipedia articles. We should also explain the page owner that why a high number of page is troublesome for readers, and should help the owner to learn the process of merging. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"owner"? What the hell are you talking about? And there is nothing sourced here to move anywhere. You make it clear on your userpage that you want to keep stuff, but there is no policy-compliant policy here to keep. Nada. You are obligated to follow policy and guidelines when you edit Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the article may have future potential for expansion; however, it currently contains almost no unique information that couldn't be added to Endosymbiont or Symbiogenesis. Also, there is no article owner as per WP:OWN. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 18:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as above. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accompany

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

trivial company, and the references are mere notices or press releases. Written by an apparently undeclared paid editor DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems like it was created as PR for a small non-notable company. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Due to there being many PR firms in existence and the article subject being not particularly notable, fails WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The article seems very promotional. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable at best and blatant promotion at worst - also not within WP:CORPDEPTH. Bryan C. W. (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yi Ding (psychologist)

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

non-notable academic. Does not meet WP:PROF-- all of her papers have fewer than 15 papers referring to them [56]--I have learned that absence of link to a list of them in the article often means that they are not significant. Writing book chapters and translating textbooks is not the sort of scientific activity that shows one an expert in one's field.

There does not sem to be anything else. She does the normal sort of service and teaching, she's on the editorial board of 2 journals, there are no major outside activities that would lead to notability .

Nor does she meet the GNG there references are either within her own university, of just show her members of various groups. I have no idea why an experienced editor moved this from draft space. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Page Yi Ding (psychologist) was cut-and-pasted to mainspace at 18:12, 19 March 2017‎ by User:Masterknighted . At 7 September 2017‎ Anthony Appleyard obeyed a request to history-merge Draft:Yi Ding to Yi Ding (psychologist). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies--I was really puzzled by it, & should have checked more carefully I've changed the link. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:Prof. Of the 7 peer-reviewed journals mentioned in the article, only Educational Psychology Review has an impact factor over 2. According to [57] her highest citation number is only 38. Timmyshin (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life's What You Make It (EP)

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

Independent notability cannot be established (not enough credible and notable sources to verify subject). Lockytas (talk) 00:00, 15 September 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 September 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can be expanded with sources available, including those about Sasha Rainbow's accompanying video/film: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - The chart listings help satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Hopefully, the sources mentioned here are actually applied in the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Charted album by band with established notability. It's common for such albums to have their own pages. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's findings. There appears to be enough existing material online to support an article. gongshow talk 23:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&type=revision&diff=800933444&oldid=800931106
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&type=revision&diff=801005624&oldid=800987770
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&type=revision&diff=799563962&oldid=799563286
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&type=revision&diff=799211560&oldid=799211255
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&type=revision&diff=798855624&oldid=798810656
^ Lizzie Dearden (15 September 2017). "'That could have been me': Parsons Green residents try to process local bomb attack". The Independent. Retrieved 15 September 2017. The bleak assessment appears to be widely shared after a stream of terror attacks striking Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge, Finsbury Park, Buckingham Palace and now Parsons Green.
^ New Tactics to Protect Soldiers on Belgian Streets, Euro News, 29 Aug 2017
^ 'Uniforms a target' Belgian General says after Brussels stabbing, Reuters, 29 August 2017
^ "Belgian soldiers shoot dead knife attacker in Brussels". Reuters. Retrieved 26 August 2017.

[1] "Thiripuram Movie First Look To Be Unveiled On 15th June At 7 PM". ksweekly.com. 16 June 2017. Retrieved 16 September 2017.

[2] "Mayilsamy's son Anbu to debut in Kollywood". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 16 September 2017.

[3] "ஹீரோவானார் மயில்சாமி மகன் | Mailsamy son turns hero in thiripuram". Dinamalar - National Tamil Daily (in Tamil). 2 July 2017. Retrieved 16 September 2017.

[4] "Comedy Actor Mayilsamy Son Introduces into Thiripuram Film". Kollywood Today (in Tamil). 3 July 2017. Retrieved 16 September 2017.

[5] "Thiripuram movie first look poster". entertainment.chennaipatrika.com. June 16, 2017. Retrieved 16 September 2017.

[6] ttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41098988

[7] ttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-idUSKCN1BA24Y

[8] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&type=revision&diff=800933444&oldid=800931106

[9] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&type=revision&diff=801005624&oldid=800987770

[10] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&type=revision&diff=799563962&oldid=799563286

[11] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&type=revision&diff=799211560&oldid=799211255

[12] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&type=revision&diff=798855624&oldid=798810656

[13] Lizzie Dearden (15 September 2017). "'That could have been me': Parsons Green residents try to process local bomb attack". The Independent. Retrieved 15 September 2017. The bleak assessment appears to be widely shared after a stream of terror attacks striking Westminster, Manchester, London Bridge, Finsbury Park, Buckingham Palace and now Parsons Green.

[14] New Tactics to Protect Soldiers on Belgian Streets, Euro News, 29 Aug 2017

[15] 'Uniforms a target' Belgian General says after Brussels stabbing, Reuters, 29 August 2017

[Belgian_soldiers_shoot_dead_knife_attacker_in_Brussels-16] "Belgian soldiers shoot dead knife attacker in Brussels". Reuters. Retrieved 26 August 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]