Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 August	31 August >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Podmajersky, Inc.[edit]

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

A company that allegedly owns 125 properties in a single Chicago neighborhood fails notability Mpen320 (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't the lack of sources. I could easily find reliable sources on myself and my career, but I'm not notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable enough for Crains, the Tribune and the Reader? Victor Grigas (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Victorgrigas: the references are all about one or another controversies, but the article doesn't really have these controversies in there. In general, I'd usually say 125 properties does not make a firm notable, but if these sources were in included in a real way (i.e. with controversies intact). I'd likely say "bordereline notable" or better. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since there is only WP:LOCAL coverage, I question notability. A single RS from at least 100 miles from Chicago would change my mind.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't been able to find any substantial in-depth coverage in reliable sources, with the exception of the Crain's article that's cited in the article, and that's really about the family rather than their company. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
forgive me I’m on mobile, so these sources will be bare links, please let me know if any meet your criteria. Many are books published a few decades ago, and on google you just need to type in ‘podmajersky’ to Find the references. Many are about urban planning and I haven’t checked but they maybe non-Chicago based publishers :

https://books.google.com/books/about/Green_Development.html?id=yuhmds7ChHoC
https://interactive.wttw.com/my-neighborhood/pilsen/gentrification
https://books.google.com/books/about/Just_Green_Enough.html?id=ltZCDwAAQBAJ (This one was written by a known academic Dominic A. Pachyga)
https://books.google.com/books/about/Chicago_city_of_neighborhoods.html?id=tWt5AAAAMAAJ
https://books.google.com/books/about/Claiming_Neighborhood.html?id=7lYdDQAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books/about/Producing_Local_Color.html?id=WXq3AVyMFmMC
https://books.google.com/books/about/Secret_Chicago_A_Guide_to_the_Weird_Wond.html?id=yKNaDwAAQBAJ
https://art.newcity.com/2014/06/16/news-embroiled-legal-battle-over-chicago-arts-district-properties/

I’ll keep looking. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these deal with the person John Podmajersky rather than the company Podmajersky, Inc. They could perhaps be cited to create an article on the person, but they don't indicate that the company is notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK do you think this should be entirely re-written to be a biography, not an article about a company?Victor Grigas (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to write a biographical article about Podmajersky then it would presumably be at the title John Podmajersky (which is currently a redirect) or perhaps John Podmajersky, Jr., so it wouldn't be a matter of rewriting the existing article but rather of creating a whole new article. I obviously am not able to offer predictions or advice about whether a hypothetical article would be kept or deleted at AfD if it were created, but I'm not convinced Podmajersky the person (or rather, any of the people by that name – we seem to be dealing with three generations' worth) meets the criteria of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject either. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as a purely local company with no real notability. The article is a borderline WP:COATRACK. Toddst1 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There just isn't enough coverage that meets the criteria to establish notability to convince me that this company is notable. On the other hand, I believe that perhaps John Podmajersky would meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robab Farahi-Mahdavieh[edit]

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

No reliable sources available to support notability requirements Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anyone who the Canadian government detains with a security certificate becomes notable because of the media coverage that results, and because less than 30 security certificates have even been issued in Canada. Note that the article already has references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could not verify the references in the article. The only reference I could find on her was this, but it does not mention the security certificate. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm unaware of any notability criteria on Wikipedia that references Canadian security certificates. Failing that, we have to judge subjects on the notability criteria that does exist, and this article meets none of them. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage does not rise to the level of justifying an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it certainly meets Wikipedia:Notability. What User:Eastmain pointed above is proven to be right to me, after I found several independent reliable sources that have covered the subject. The National Post, Montreal Gazette, The American Spectator, The Ottawa Citizen, The Vancouver Sun and Medicine Hat News articles listed are just a handful the whole sack. The case is also important among security certificates, see the papers published by two peer-reviewed academic journals, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism and Canadian Journal of Law and Society. Pahlevun (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I've looked through every source I can access, plus my own BEFORE check. I wasn't able to find more than a couple of lines. This included the generic security certificate articles that were accessible. I didn't find anything that would satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. I am aware that there is the potential of additional non-accessible sources being cited, but given the dearth of material The Vancouver Sun source, for example, sounds a potential good one, but I was unable to find it despite a specific search. As such, I feel a Weak Delete judgement is appropriate until more beneficial sourcing is found. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've also looked through the sources and all I could get was that the subject was involved in an alleged flash mob attack on the Iranian embassy in Canada. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Mohaz Samadi's RfD. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Besides the sources dealing with her, hence Wikipedia:Notability is met, she was a key MEK figure and was involved in multiple significant events. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what "significant events" what she involved in besides being suspected of organazing a mob demonstration? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, she was probably involved in funnelling money to American politicians, was chief fundraiser and recruiter for MEK in Canada and etc. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP notability criteria is met by "probably involved in funneling money or being a chief fundraiser for an organization"? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources raising the those 'probabilities' prove the notability. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable figure. Poor coverage even in Persian (Google results in Persian).Farhikht (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uyghur American Association. So Why 15:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nury Turkel[edit]

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

New article 29 August which was immediately turned into a redirect with the reasoning: "Press coverage is about the association not about him personally. Restoring redirect." Since this action was akin to a speedy deletion, and the article clearly does not warrant that, I submit it here neutrally. Geschichte (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This was a long standing redirect which was turned into an article which I found while doing new page patrol. While looking into notability I found coverage of Turkel in RS but only briefly (failing significance) and mostly quoting him as part of his having been President of the Uyghur American Association. More in-depth coverage came from non-RS (e.g. his law firm). I followed standard procedure and restored the redirect. So that's what I would advocate here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notice the article Uyghur American Association was created by User:Nuryturkel = this individual? Timmyshin (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now Turkel is a notable Uyghur figure in the United States and among Uyghurs in the world. Now he serving as the Chairman of the Board for the Uyghur Human Rights Project, as mentioned Here, which is playing as important role in documenting human rights issues for Uyghurs in China. Recently he gaved speeches in events like this and interviewed by outlets including BBC HARDtalk here and France 24 here. Now he is not only an Uyghur attorney in the United States but also an Uyghur politician and activist, that’s why I gathered his information and put here in wikipedia. So it is Keep for me, thanks.--KH561 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Uyghur American Association. KH561's sources make me feel a little more confident in that organization's notability, but not Turkel's. At a glance, everything he has publicly spoken on in this article and those sources was as a representative of the Uyghur American Association. Daask (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I flip through news articles, there's lots of passing mentions and commentary by Turkel on current events in ways that present him as a spokesman for his people. I tend to focus heavily on WP:GNG in deletion discussions, and I'm not seeing a source with good depth, but should note that this may well be the most prominent representative of the Uyghurs in the United States. Daask (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my exploration of the topic came to that conclusion (most prominent US Uyghur) but there doesn't seem to be a major profile or other sourcing to use as the basis for an article on Turkel himself. Absent other sourcing, in the AfDs I've seen, being the most prominent X in/of Y has not been enough for notability. I do think the organization (for which he seems to be the most frequent/prominent spokesperson) is notable and thus my suggestion for a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that as mentioned in the last sentence of this article here which written in 2012, we can know that he served as the president of Uyghur American Association before 2012. The web page of that association here show that Ilshat Hasan is the current president and Turkel’s name even not mentioned in the list, so I think he is nothing to do with the organization now. Meanwhile, I think he has a PH.D Degree in law so playing more important role in raising Uyghur issues in international stages and as User:Daask mentioned above he is the most prominent representative of the Uyghurs in the United States, I think in the United States only second to Rebiya Kadeer now. So I hope this article can be kept, thanks.--KH561 (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KH561: Thanks for pointing this out. In August 2018, Turkel was referred to as "UHRP’s Chairman of the Board"[1] The Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) was formerly a project of the Uyghur American Association, but has been independent since 2016.[2] My mistake. A news search indicates that Uyghur Human Rights Project doesn't seem notable. Daask (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tariner[edit]

Not notable and not enough coverage. Harut111 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2018 (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/2018 August 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge proposal can be made on the talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connections (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by SPA editor without reason provided. SPA editor added a section entitled "Landmark papers" (removed minutes after this AfD was opened), claiming that articles from the journal have had an enormous impact. In fact, what is listed are just some ordinary citations, puffed up in a very promotional way (not to mention OR and SYNTH). Therefore PROD reason still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myeh. According to its history, you've been occasionally editing this article for five and a half years. Now, perhaps in a fit of pique after dealing with the alleged SPA, you quickly prod and then five days later upgrade the prod to afd. Yes, the journal is likely obscure, as the overwhelming majority tend to be because their publishers have no interest in gaming Wikipedia "notability" system with the unscrupulous sophistication of, say, the smut industry, but then that's the norm with academic material. If the real problem here is with edit-warring SPAs, there are different administrative channels for that. --2601:444:300:3F7F:E5D9:8132:2134:BEB8 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I can do without your insinuations about my possible motives. Comment on the issues, not the editor. Come up with a reason why this would meet GNG or NJournals (as literally thousands of academic journals do) and I'll withdraw my nom. Or not, and then we'll see this AfD through to the end. --Randykitty (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3,480 Google Books search-returns for the exact phrase "Connections: The Quarterly Journal", suggesting that its articles are widely cited and that the journal is considered a reliable source. --2601:444:300:3F7F:E5D9:8132:2134:BEB8 (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's something strange with that search, once you start digging deeper. When I browse through the results, nothing comes up after the fifth page (I have my preferences set to 100 results per page), so that's 500 hits max. I picked one result at random and searched within that book for"Connections: The Quarterly Journal", which came up empty. Taking the very first hit on the first page (actually the second one, because the first one is the journal itself) renders an in-passing mention and two citations to articles published in the journal. A GScholar search for "Connections: The Quarterly Journal" renders several very highly-cited articles, but all in different journals. Nothing of significance for this journal pops up. So, no, this does not seem to be a widely cited journal (and whether it's a reliable source or not has no bearing on notability). --Randykitty (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge at Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes. Fails WP:NJOURNALS, but the content is salvageable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) KCVelaga (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attractiveness[edit]

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

This is a disaster of an article that's been a summary/WP:CFORK of Physical attractiveness or an attempt to describe "Eye candy" for the past 10 years. An attempt to soft-redirect to Wiktionary was reverted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has failed to give any substantial reasons for deletion. If an article is substandard, by all means, improve it. There is a similarity between Physical attractiveness and Attractiveness but the case that there's a fork is weak, and one might argue that the subject of attractiveness (clearly an encyclopedic topic) is broader and more encompassing than merely physical attractiveness and definitely deserves its own article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is valid and the article is decent.TH1980 (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator hasn't given a valid reason for deletion. MBlaze Lightning 04:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Zhongjing[edit]

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

I'm no expert on the sources here, not being a Mandarin speaker, but most of them look like primary sources or social media. I don't think this person is notable. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is a disaster, and the refs are largely this person's Medium blog. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has published several books in Chinese and translated many more from English into Chinese. His books seem to have at least a few hundred readers in China: [3]. He also has a column on The News Lens: [4] Are these enough to establish notability? I'm not so sure. I'm leaning Delete because the article is terrible as mentioned, with sentences such as "[he] is considered an important figure in the pro-Western ultra-right in contemporary China". Probably requires WP:TNT if anything, right now it looks too much like WP:SOAPBOX. Timmyshin (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The News Lens doesn't look too notable itself, unfortunately. He seems like a minor writer/provocateur rather than a notable theorist. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 18:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let me fill up the #Reviews paragraph. Do not delete too hurry. BTW, the result of AfD discussion in Chinese Wikipedia is kept. 116.192.198.9 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have improved this article, I think now it is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Need any more? 116.192.198.9 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, its Chinese Wikipedia counterpart is essentially a fan page. Regarding his translation work, there are couple reports on their low qualities. ([5], [6]) -Mys_721tx (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "本條目類似愛好者專頁" / "This article may be written from a fan's point of view" is not "essentially". If essential, why Chinese Wikipedia consensus decide not to delete? 116.192.198.9 (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Because it was kept due to a technicality, not the notability of the subject. -Mys_721tx (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Please explain which "technicality"? Until Chinese Wikipedia comply deletion, I insist on Chinese Wikipedia consensus decide not to delete. 116.192.198.9 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  It is already in that discussion you cited. The article was kept because the standard procedure on Chinese Wikipedia requires a 30-days hold for notability-based deletion. Please do not cherry-pick. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  This AfD on Chinese Wikipedia is in 2015, but now is 2018. Far more than 30 days. Thou you should restart AfD on Chinese Wikipedia, urge Chinese Wikipedia comply deletion. 116.192.198.9 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese wikipedia and English wikipedia are independent projects. Related, but of different criteria. Timmyshin (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG since a great many sources are the individuals blog posts or a link to a social media account. The article also has an air of trying to spreading an ideology, not inform readers. He also doesn't appear to be a notable author or philosopher either. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't think I've run into a "no consensus" more no-consensusy than this one. Those who wish to keep this should watch-list it, and make sure it is maintained regularly. Otherwise it will be detrimental to the encyclopedia. (last two sentences are my own opinion, and are not counted in my closing judgement) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War[edit]

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

The article List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War should be deleted because it is fatally data deficient, unable to be properly maintained, and is a longevity fanfluff article, not of true encyclopedic value. As this news article states, [7], as of July 2016 there were about 200 living La Quinta del Biberon soldiers. This Wikipedia article incorrectly claims Manuel Gallego-Nicasio is the last of this group of 30,000 soldiers. La Quinta del Biberon soldiers are just one small component of the total number of those who served in the Spanish Civil War, so it stands to reason there are at least many hundreds if not thousands of veterans of this conflict still living. Yet, there are only eight people on this two part list, five of whom I could not locate a recent reliable source (from within one year) stating they were still alive. Faustino Olivera's most recent reliable source demonstrating he was alive is over 10 years old, while José Álvarez Limia's source is approaching being 5 years old. Veteran Karel Dufek died in 2009 yet was only removed in June 2017 and veteran Sandalio González Pérez was removed in June 2018 after dying over a year before. It is against WP:BLP to claim dead people are still alive, which is a systematic problem in this article. This article cannot maintain the handful of entries it has and lacks the hundreds or thousands of other living Spanish Civil War veterans that exist, which gives readers the wildly false impression that there are almost none of these veterans left. The handful of entries on this list represent a pure fanfluff interpretation of reality - that there only 8 veterans left, that there are categories of lasts which don't really exist, that dead vets are really still alive, etc. There is also nothing special about this war as to require an individual article listing all the living veterans of the war - we don't have such an article for any other war to my knowledge. Only war or longevity fans want this, it is not encyclopedic. All of these are the same or similar reasons that a corresponding suite of articles on deaths of Spanish Civil War veterans by year was deleted long ago. It is time this article is also deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2018 (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/2018 August 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Fanfluff" as a reason to delete on an article about war veterans and calling this war "not special" pretty much throws this nom into a prejudicial WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory, notwithstanding the textwall you're trying to throw at us. Restate your nomination in one paragraph of less than three sentences. Also, don't get mad at volunteer editors for forgetting to remove those who have died from this article; be glad this article is updated at all. Plenty of sources for those in the article that I see, too. Finally, " we don't have such an article for any other war to my knowledge"? Three clicks is all it takes to get to List of notable surviving veterans of World War II. Nate • (chatter) 02:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not restate my well reasoned argument and no, I am not prejudiced against this article or angry at editors, so don't try to avoid my points with red herrings. I was stating reality. There are not plenty of recent reliable sources (the consensus on longevity pages is each individual needs a reliable source up to one year old stating they were alive to be included). An article for notable veterans of a war and an article for all veterans of a war that includes almost none of those veterans are two very different things. Your rudeness and false accusations are of no substance to this AFD. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, your argument was not well-reasoned. Secondly, you are not supposed to be posting an argument but merely cite specific reasons why the article does not meet WP criteria, which you can accomplish in 10 words. People who post walls of text for AfD are driven by their dislike of the subject. This article is clearly not fancruft, I don't know what "fatally data deficient" even means (after years of participating in AfD) and "unable to be properly maintained" is just more of your opinion. I have never contributed to this article (or any article on the Spanish Civil War as far as I know) so I am telling you my neutral opinion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article violates WP:BLP, too soon, WP:Memorial, and lacks the hundreds and possibly thousands of living Spanish Civil War veterans, which makes the article encyclopedically worthless. There are very few reliable sources for individual veterans because evidently this subject doesn't interest people in the real world. It is also a fact that editors have proven incapable for over a decade of properly maintaining the information in this article. As explained by Derby below, this article was originally created as a hobby article by war oriented longevity fans when their last playground closed down. Concise enough? Newshunter12 (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was definitely started too soon and could certainly be considered to have been fanfluff as it was started at about the time the WWI surviving veterans page came to an end. That it appears to have never listed more than 10% of the actual surviving veterans makes it of negligible encyclopedic value. The topic itself is certainly of far less notability than the corresponding WWI article. The fact that there are so few updates also reflects an apparent lack of interest in the topic. It could be speculated that as more veterans reach 100 there might be an increase in reports of veterans and possibly of interest generally but it is debatable whether that justifies retaining the article at this time and in its current state. It is however more justified as an article than List of notable surviving veterans of World War II which not only has the same flaws but is a perfect example of listcruft. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nate (Mrschimpf). Perplexed that anyone would refer to this as "Fanfluff" — who are the "fans" of this war? Is there a Spanish Civil Warcon? Article should be improved or updated but I don't see a good reason cited why it shouldn't exist. This war was 80 years ago so it's precisely the time period when this article would be relevant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to a Spanish Civil War section on survivors. If that section doesn't exist, then create it (merge). Redditaddict69 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article has been maintained for over a decade. It's the same as the surviving vets of World War I page, when that was still relevant. Czolgolz (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks the hundreds and possibly thousands of living Spanish Civil War veterans who exist and has always done so, as Derby explained above, which makes it encyclopedically worthless. Whether anyone likes it or not, it has also been in a derelict state for years (e.g. Faustino Olivera should have been removed over nine years ago as explained above). Newshunter12 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a very eclectic policy on listing obscure people as alive or dead. Over at the List of surviving silent film actors, the insist that we CANNOT remove people unless we find a source that they are actually dead. So who's to say Faustino Olivera isn't still alive and living in obscurity? Czolgolz (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The long held consensuses on longevity pages, of which this is one (see template at bottom of article) is that individuals need a reliable source up to one year old stating they were alive or they are removed. You admit that these people are obscure (aka not notable), which is true. This topic is not notable, it was longevity fan generated when their last playground closed down (list of surviving WW1 veterans). Thank you for agreeing with me. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "There is also nothing special about this war as to require an individual article listing all the living veterans of the war - we don't have such an article for any other war to my knowledge. Only war or longevity fans want this, it is not encyclopedic." This statement right here brings me close to thinking that this is a bad faith nomination; nasty nasty war stuff, who wants that, right? (Gee, do I get to eliminate any article from Wikipedia in a field that bores me?) Never mind that it shows a blatant lack of WP:BEFORE -- we don't have such an article for any other war? Try the template on the bottom of the freaking article! Nor, demographically, would there be "hundreds and possibly thousands" of such veterans, when you have to be a centenarian or near to to make the list. If there are sourcing issues, that's a content dispute, but not one for AfD. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. *sigh* Another response at this AFD filled with personnel attacks and false accusations instead of whether this article merits existing under Wikipedia policy and any encyclopedic standards. This reliable source shows that in one small group of those who served in this war, there were hundreds of veterans living as of July 2016 [8], which is a fact I put in my AFD explanation above, so I clearly didn't just make it up. This article contains only eight people, most of whom don't meet policy requirements to stay on the list. This is clearly a minute number of the total number of living Spanish Civil War veterans and as Derby explained above, it has always been so with this article. The required number of reliable sources for individual veterans needed to make this article encyclopedically worthwhile simply do not exist. The reason for this is the topic of this article is not notable, it was fan generated as explained in above comments. No other current article tries to list all surviving veterans of a war in an individual article, so looking at the bottom template does not prove your point, but mine. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A whole load of WP:IDHT and WP:BOOMERANG there, sport. Just read up. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearly not in violation of either of those policies, so the false accusations continue, unfortunately. Please try sticking to debating the article and not claiming you know the AFD nominator, someone you don't even know, is acting in bad faith or violating random policies. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For all those claiming I am biased against this article by stating the fact that it is fanfluff and fan generated by longevity fans, I ask you to look at the various forum discussions on the 110 club website (in case anyone doesn't know, it's a notorious longevity fan website where many people longevity topic banned or perma-banned from Wikipedia go) about surviving Spanish Civil War veterans and when will the last one die. The obscure topic of this article most certainly does have an active and longstanding fan base, as I correctly pointed out. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's resorting to personal attacks? Just because you're not interested in something, doesn't mean its fan fluff or non encyclopedic. I can't count the number of articles (and they were not longevity-themed) with many contributors that existed for years until someone randomly stumbled upon it and said 'It pleaseth me not. Remove it from my sight post haste.' Czolgolz (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I attacked no editors personally. I am aware that you are a longtime editor of this article and at no time have I accused you of anything. Contributors to this AFD seem to think I made up that there is an active fanbase for this articles content, and I merely pointed them to where they can openly see this fanbase in action. Presenting factual information is not an attack. This article as a legitimate, well-sourced part of this encyclopedia is indefensible and I do wonder if the focus on me, the nominator, is because editors can't actually defend the article on its merits. I don't know what's in any of your hearts so I am not accusing anyone of anything, but I do wonder. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't attack me, you attacked people at the 110+ club. Just clarifying.Czolgolz (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I said about the 110 club is not an attack, it's the truth. Also, many people there openly trash the longevity project on Wikipedia and are known to have been kicked off Wikipedia, such as the GRG's Robert Young. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comments mainly here are about how you think those interested in wars and their veterans maintain 'fanfluff', not about people on a message board interested in long-lived persons. Most of those here on AfD don't even know what the GRG is, much less the conflicts in that entire topic area over the years (or like most of the ANI regular topic rolls, stay the heck away from it and don't want to raise any hackles towards them; I have no interest in the topic and see no point of wandering in, no offense). Nate • (chatter) 07:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per Nate. This is just another longevity related article that never should have been nominated for deletion in the first place. Drunk in Paris (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why not have a list of the tallest veterans or the most obese ones? In addition, this list is bound to disappear, sooner or later no veterans will be left. None of the entries on this list is notable in his own right, so the information in this list really is absolutely uninteresting. Note that the list of WWII veterans referred to above is limited to notable veterans. Finally and most importantly, there are no sources that show that "surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War" is actually a notable topic. Hence: fails WP:LISTN. As for the !vote above, as far as I can see, this is yet another longevity-related article that should never have been created to start with... --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there are still millions of WWII vets left alive. When the Great War veterans' ranks grew low, there were plenty of articles about the remaining survivors.Czolgolz (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see purpose to the list. Moreover, it's bound to remain incomplete and inaccurate: There are many people who took part in that conflict and who are alive today but will never be included because of lack of sources. Plus, there's always the issue of how "took part" is defined, i.e. who qualifies as a veteran? Only soldiers? The nurses? The civil service administrators of either side? A veritable Pandora's box. -The Gnome (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-purpose and re-name to List of last Spanish Civil War veterans by country. The current construction of the page is original research, and thus the page is a violation of what Wikipedia is not. I note that this topic is under Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: although it may seem like trivia, I don't think that the lack of maintenance qualifies this article for deletion. I also don't understand how the list construction qualifies as OR. The sources clearly state which side they were on and it seems like an obvious distinction to make. This subject may be covered poorly in English-language news, but I suspect there are more sources available in Spanish, so I don't see that as a reason to delete. Catrìona (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm persuaded by the WP:BLP argument here. An out of date, inaccurate or incomplete list about software, for example, is one thing. When it's a list about people it's another. Would be tempted to say keep with something like a Template:Dynamic list that expressed the issue with more humane language, but I'm not sure there's a template that exists to caveat this list appropriately. - Scarpy (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Small article that should be merged to Spanish Civil War. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all veterans survived. Some lived to very old age. So what? If a veteran of any war passes WP:SIGCOV he can have a page. It is conceivable that the "oldest surviving" or "oldest surviving" member of a specific unit, say, the Lincoln Battalion, might be written up sufficiently for that alone to have a page. But this list is not encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the persuasive reasoning of E.M.Gregory. The nom kind of looks like bad faith; part WP:JDLI and the choice of any word combination with "fluff" will look disrespectful to veterans. But, putting the rationale for the nom aside, the list just doesn't appear notable, useful, or accurate. Ifnord (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DerbyCountyinNZ; an indiscriminate fusion of two traits that exists for the amusement of off-wiki fanboys. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is still ongoing, and a recent flood of votes might indicate that more people have noticed and/or are interested in the subject material and can constructively give opinions on the suitability of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per NukeThePukes. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His entire argument consisted of trashing the nominator (me) and making provable false claims, such as that their are not at least hundreds and possibly thousands of vets left, when there are, and that we currently have other individual articles (that means solely dedicated to one war) dedicated to all surviving war vets of other conflicts, which we don't. Whatever you are endorsing is of no substance to this discussion. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mrschimpf and Czolgolz also make good points. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There's been a lot of name calling here. Czolgolz (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Newshunter12's sure done his fair share of it. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to arguments made that we have many similar articles: No, we don't. what we have are "Lists of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars". We could indeed have an article on the "Last surviving" member of particular brigades, or "last surviving" veteran in specific countries. Enormous attention has been lavished on this important war, and on the international volunteers who flocked to Spain to fight in it. But this article is is about all veterans still alive. It is not a COMMON sort of article, nor a sensible articles. All veterans survived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:LISTN as the topic of "surviving" veterans has not been discussed sufficiently in reliable sources. The list would make more sense if the individuals were blue-linked, but this is not the case. Also, per the elements of a "death-watch" undertones. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nate, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Into the Rift (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several experienced editors have made cogent arguments for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nate's whole argument consisted of trashing and making demands of the nominator (me), and making provably false claims such as that their is adequate sourcing in the article when most sources are older then the maximum on longevity pages age of one year and new sources can't be found for five of eight individuals. He also made the false claim that we have similar articles to this, for all surviving veterans of a war, which we don't. Whatever you are endorsing is of no substance to this AfD. By the way, despite the false accusations on this thread, I don't have a personal problem with this article and the article doesn't equal the veterans in it either. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be closed as No Consensus for now. There are great opinions on each side and a 4th relist is unreasonable. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 03:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The keep! voter arguments were overwhelmingly attacks on the nominator and provably false claims, while all eight delete voters gave substantive arguments for deletion. How does that warrant a no consensus judgement? Newshunter12 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the votes that side with you should count and the opposition votes shouldn't? Czolgolz (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. I merely made a fact based observation and asked a question. This is not a vote anyway - on Wikipedia, it's the quality of arguments that matter. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Obviously I concur with Newshunter12; the keep votes containing clear falsehoods, as documented above, deserve no weight. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised almost nobody has agreed with my vote yet to redirect/merge to the actual war and make a section there. While the keep votes aren't entirely accurate, they still exist. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mizna Waqas[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:ACTOR and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has prominent roles in national television series including Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz, and Saaya (Geo TV), as well as recurring roles in many other series, passes WP:NACTOR with the prominent roles. thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has had no major role in Saaya. Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz is now up for deletion. --Saqib (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by yourself despite it being a nationally broadcast TV series passing WP:TVSERIES Atlantic306 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Play Entertainment is not considered a national national TV station. --Saqib (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being in a run of the mill show is pretty worthless in my opinion but the total lack of coverage is what sways me to say delete. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep being appeared in multiple television shows. Appeared in supporting role in acclaimed series Mera Naam Yousuf Hai and Suno Chanda for which her name is also mentioned in this [9], [10],[11],[12] and this [13]. She only did supporting roles till mid of 2018 and if there are multiple roles then also passes requirement of wikipidea. From August 2018 she has appeared in a prominent role in Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz which is currently airing, one can check episode title from official youtube page.[14]. RidaJunejo.

And yet every single one of those is a passing mention. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- have you searched in Urdu for sources? Also images.dawn has the same editorial team as Dawn so it is a reliable source, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And a buzzfeed like list with a single passing mention is irrelevant no matter who the editorial team is. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't a list, it was a story about a tv series, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: And have you searched in Urdu sources for coverage ? I did and found nothing significant. Don't just insist there must be sources out there somewhere, prove it by providing them. And second thing, Dawn and Dawn Images have different editorial team, for your information. Dawn Images is more like a tabloid news site.--Saqib (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn images is owned by Dawn and lists the same editorial team Atlantic306 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you need to meet Dawn Images team. --Saqib (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is owned by Dawn and Dawn appointed the staff Atlantic306 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

But so many passing mentions as one can see. For notability there is condition of multiple roles too as i have seen in other pages of this platform. RidaJunejo.

You're misunderstand I guess. WP:NACTOR states Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. --Saqib (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I dont, Ghar Titli Ka Par, Suno Chanda, Mera Naam Yousuf Hai, Aik Thi Raniya, Mann Ke Moti etc all are the acclaimed and notable television shows of their time. For her stage performance, i already showed you source from The News International.

Not only Dawn but Pakistan Today which i provided above and this one [15] from The News International mentioned her. Dawn is a daily newspaper of Pakistan, here we are only gather for one person's notability not any controversial news for which you think its tabloid etc.RidaJunejo

I've reviewed all the sources, and see nothing but casual namedrops, and mention in passing, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. --Saqib (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib for actor, there is a rule of multiple roles too which you are ignoring. And if we are looking for primary sources then a bunch of sources about her are available like these [16],[17], [18] She has appeared in more than 20 Television serials and many of the pages are created at wikipidea too. Also in her biography there is no any contents like advertisement or promotion, its just a list of her roles and shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RidaJunejo (talk • contribs)

As I states above, WP:NACTOR requires significant multiple roles. A bunch of source you listed (moviesplatter, pakistani.pk, dramaguru) are not reliable enough to be cited on BLPs. The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They dont established notability you are right. But being appeared in bunch of acclaimed national TV shows and bunch of mentioned in RS make person notable, its my views and difference of thought is not something wrong. You are right too, lets wait for others. RidaJunejo.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306 - Their roles in notable TV programmes/Films would push them over the NACTOR threshold, Meets NACTOR & BASIC. –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has had no major role in multiple TV serials. --Saqib (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of the substance of the sources, rather than their existence, would be helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Absence of significant coverage as required by GNG, and none of the keep votes has put forward any policy based argument. --Saqib (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

WP:NACTOR states significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Her supporting roles in many notable national TV programmes for which her name is also mentioned in WP:RS sources of that programmes which are linked above proves that she was part of that shows and passes that notability guideline. Also there is one lead role in serial Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz and there are dozens of Pakistani television articles on wikipidea linked to her also proves that she was appeared in that programmes.RidaJunejo (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead role in only one TV serial is not enough. supporting role is not equivalent to significant roles. --Saqib (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This platform has so many actor articles who are famous for their supporting roles only like Charlene Holt, Achint Kaur etc and you are saying supporting is not equivalent to significent. Any ways supporting roles in dozens of television programmes and notable theatre [19] is not something important?. This source clearly said Samina (played by Mizna Waqas) takes centre stage with her tragic story. RidaJunejo (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many BLPs which fails WP:N therefore we do not go by the examples on Wikipedia per WP:OTHERSTUFF. The one you mentioned is not a notable stage performance so I don't care whether she took centre stage or not. Anyways, I've made my arguments so Instead of discussing it further, I will leave it onto the closing admin to make final decision. --Saqib (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not known to WP:OTHERSTUFF, sorry for that. Besides that i dont understand what is reliable for you and whats not, source from The News International is not reliable for you and that theatre is non notable, i presented lines from newspaper which said about her centre stage but still non notable according to you. I already leaved discussion that day when i told you about "wait for other's views" and today i was not agreed to the Note you written that's why replied. Anyways Good day.RidaJunejo (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting my comments. --Saqib (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – current coverage is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Much of them are name-checks only, fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion RidaJunejo is blocked for block evasion: (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lillyput4455) so I suggest their comments be struck down. --Saqib (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment prominent roles does not mean only leading roles, being in the main cast of a national TV series counts as prominent and Waqas has been in the main cast of many TV Series so easily passes WP:NACTOR, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chrissymad and Störm above. Minor roles in two major TV shows (according to reliable sources), lacks evidence of notability, therefore fails WP:NACTOR which requires significant roles in multiple productions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting a starring role in a national TV series and only looking at the article's refs rather than searching for others Atlantic306 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - This here is the original version of the article before it was slashed Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you serious? who said I only looked at the current references? A Google News search yields only (only) 9 hits and all are name-checks also if you really care about this origionl research which I slashed under WP:BURDEN why not to cite some reliable soruce and prove it? GSS (talk|c|em) 04:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created and later expanded by the different socks of User:Pakistanpedia so it also falls under G5. --Saqib (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- No, its had major edits by a number of editors including GSS Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure GSS would disagree with you. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100 percent and my edits shouldn't be considered substantial in any way. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Impartial observer comment: GSS has not contributed to the article in any meaningful sense, he has merely performed maintenance tasks. It appears the editors that have added meaningful content to this article are Shariq554 and Lillyput4455. The article was created by Shariq554, who does not appear to be a blocked or banned editor. AwaisRaza3000, a sock of Pakistanpedia, merely created a redirect. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And RidaJunejo (talk · contribs) was a sock of Pakistanpedia. --Saqib (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I didn't go deep enough into the SPI. I have corrected my earlier statement. There have been three substantial editors, one of which was a sockpuppet, but the sockpuppet is not the article creator. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. Has major roles in significant TV series. Passes ~~WP:GNG~~ WP:NACTOR at least. Knightrises10 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightrises10: And how? care to explain to us? --Saqib (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" Knightrises10 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And which are those? Did you read the comment that refutes that just below the nomination? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No argument to delete; consensus is that the article can be expanded. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 08:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main Political Council[edit]

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

I did a web search for “Poland Main Political Council”. Not much related to the content of the article appeared. Suspicious. In addition, the article does not cite any sources. Interesting. I tagged it with the “Hoax” template. Now it’s up for deletion here. Torrent01 (is cool) (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a hoax. The corresponding Polish article is here. A Google translation is here Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This formation is discussed in context, with a footnote, at Polish Underground State. I have also added a book reference, though left the nominator's Hoax tag in place for the moment. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Service for Poland's Victory unless there is scope for a major expansion before this AFD closes. This appears to be the political wing of an underground resistance organisation, following the conquest of Poland by Germany and Russia in 1939. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agree with Peterkingiron. Renata (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does appear to satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a fair amount of coverage in multiple books, The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945 for instance. I would not oppose a merge given the current undeveloped state of both articles, but either way, the information should be kept per WP:PRESERVE. By the way, a more common English translation in sources of Główna Rada Polityczna is "Chief Political Council" which may help in searches. Also, the council is also known as Rada Główna Obrony Narodowej ("Main National Defense Council"). SpinningSpark 17:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been demonstrated not to be a hoax, however there is a split view between Merge and Keep. It would be helpful if the Merge !votes could clarify if they were arguing on basis of CONTENTFORK, notability or otherwise
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sufficient for a stub in the present state. There are others sources available under the native name: Google books preview. Also has a pl.wiki article which is a good indicator of notability: Główna Rada Polityczna. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dawntreader[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:NMUSIC. Releases aren't major label, no evidence of WP:CHART, cursory search didn't turn up any good WP:RS for the band. Teemu08 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only WP:NMUSIC criterion they can really hope to pass is #1 — but the sources present here, while not terrible ones, aren't enough to clear NMUSIC #1 all by themselves if they're all we can do, and I can't find anything better either: even on a ProQuest search to find older coverage more contemporaneous to their period of activity, I still couldn't find anything but routine concert listings in Vancouver's local media (and irrelevant text matches on the C.S. Lewis novel, a Joni Mitchell song or a visual artist named Angela Dawntreader.) And we can't check off #11 just because the article claims that the band got playlisted on CBC Radio 3, either — the claim is completely unverifiable, because literally every single aspect of R3's old website that was once helpful in establishing or supporting NMUSIC notability for a band or musician (like the ability to check old playlogs or R3-30 charts to verify whether they ever really played a song or not) was thrown in the digital trashcan when it got swallowed up by the larger CBC Music website. It's not the claim to passing NMUSIC that gets a band into Wikipedia, it's the quality of the referencing that can be shown to properly support that the claim to passing NMUSIC is true — but the sourcing shown here isn't enough, and I can't find anything better. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Six Flags Magic Mountain. Strong consensus that TOOSOON/CRYSTALBALL applies. Details will remain accessible in history to help build any future article if requirements can be met at any point (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Racers[edit]

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

No actual coverage of this ride, was announced 2 days ago, WP:CRYSTALBALL and hasn't even started construction. No opposition to recreation if and when it has significant coverage, otherwise it can be redirected and covered in the article CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD of WP:CRYSTALBALL roller coasters:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Sir Chrissymad says. The redirect is fine. The creator of the article should learn to take good advice. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If only we could post gifs here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Six Flags Magic Mountain. The "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements" part of WP:CRYSTALBALL particularly applies here. Bakazaka (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Six Flags Magic Mountain. As per above and WP:TOOSOON. Computer40 «»(talk) 22:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the future, the article should be nominated for deletion before blanking the page/redirecting it, unless the article passes the criteria for a speedy delete. Also, the creator of the article also made Copperhead Strike, which is another coaster that was just announced today. Computer40 «»(talk) 22:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is a thing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would possibly omit the inclusion of Copperhead Strike since there already is vertical development and construction, via Roller Coaster DataBase. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 23:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Construction is meaningless, only coverage matters. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be fine, but mentioning construction in the first place then construed part of the point. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 02:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above; TOOSOON Wolfson5 (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Six Flags Magic Mountain, simply WP:TOOSOON. MBlaze Lightning 04:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Six Flags Magic Mountain article per WP:TOOSOON and WP:ATD. JC7V-constructive zone 06:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dynamite (roller coaster) created today by same editor, following creation of this AfD and interactions. Editor is not understanding... Shenme (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shenme, nominated for AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamite (roller coaster) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and a redirect without an AfD discussion was completely proper. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't aware that you can redirect without AfD. I just thought it would cause more problems (like the edit warring that the original creator did). Computer40 «»(talk) 05:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect or draftify Major case of WP:CRYSTALBALLing. Thus WP:TOOSOON. Also as per the reasons given above. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Indian festivals[edit]

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

Too broad, incomplete and not sourced. Includes praise. » Shadowowl | talk 20:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is sourced to the Mahabharata. The codes (1,221) and (14,59) appear to be for verses of the Mahabharata. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR mix of historical/mythological. Scholars are equipped to analyze Epic/Puranic literature and come to conclusions on how the descriptions in these texts reflect cultural practices during the times these texts were written/compiled/amended. But citing these primary sources directly as evidence for "ancient Indian festivals" is just bonkers. The topic may be encyclopedic under a less weaselly title than with the vague adjective "ancient", but the current article is not worth retaining (I also checked the prior versions in the article history). Abecedare (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This is a poor article, but not beyond rescuing. Whatever we may think of Mahabharata, it is one of the two great epics of India. As such I expect there is a wealth of secondary literature (probably in Sanskrit or Hindi) by way of commentary. Since the article does not (yet) appear to have anything based on Ramayana, perhaps the title should be Festivals recorded in Mahabharata. As a Christian, I do not believe in the Hindu gods who feature in Mahabharata, but that does not mean that WP should ignore it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, although the article needs a lot of work on it (for a start, it could do with some references). Agree with User: Peterkingiron that the article is in a poor state, but not beyond rescuing. Vorbee (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourcing, probably original research. Even list entries do not appear to be notable themselves. Ajf773 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:OR. topic itself is too vague to make an article. If someone wanted to build an article on a more defined topic, such as Festivals mentioned in the Mahabharata, it would require not merely drawing material from the Mahabharata, but sourcing to scholarly literature.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on whether secondary references exist is necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this article is WP:OR, which is a good reason for deleting. We do have an extensive List of festivals in India, most are bluelinked. But this phrase is an outmoded way to talk about Vedic, Jain, or other autochthonous ancient religious traditions in the subcontinent, the handful of book hits on the phrase are early 20th century. Indian religious tradition is a thriving field of study: scholarly, pious, and pseudo-scholarly. Let's delete this and wait for better. We truly do have a severe deficit of articles on the history of faith traditions in India. But that maynot be a reason to override WP:NOTESSAY. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The CSVLOD model of enterprise architecture[edit]

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

Brainchild of one guy, didn't turn up independent coverage. The cited sources by people other than Kotusev don't appear to mention the CSVLOD model. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Enterprise architecture artifacts is another page by the same author; 4 of the 6 references there are to Kotusev papers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ashraf Wahlah[edit]

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

Not covered significantly, fails WP:JUDGE. Störm (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:JUDGE and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources thus fails to meet basic GNG. --Saqib (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Far too soon for a renomination after the previous, extended, discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KPTT Agricultural Training Center[edit]

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

Single source for this two-sentence article. WP:BEFORE finds no other sources in GNews or GBooks. Fails all notability guidelines. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One problem here seems to be that "KPTT Agricultural Training Center" is not the name of the school, which is apparently called "Kursus Pertanian Taman Tani". That gets a good number of hits on GBooks; I'll leave it to someone who speaks that language to determine if any of them has independent reliable in-depth coverage of the school. There seems to be some in the one solitary source cited in the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was recently dramatically shortened in what I presume was an attempt at NPOV in response to the legacy of Jzsj. See the old version here. Daask (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close The AFD was open for 1 month from 29th July to 29th August 2018 and was closed as No Consensus here on 29 August 2018 .It is being reopened on 30th August.While no one has nothing against a renomination but feel it should not reopened immediately after just 2 days.[If one is unhappy with the closure they can discuss with closing admin or take it WP:DRV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Mahavir Education Foundation[edit]

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

Article is on an organization which appears to be a holding company for private colleges in India, founded in 2002. The article is only sourced to two government registries. A BEFORE search on JSTOR, Google News, and Google Books finds only this incidental mention in a table [20]. It's possible the colleges may be notable (though none currently have articles) but per WP:INHERITED that wouldn't make the Bhagwan Mahavir Education Foundation notable. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the United States and Canada, a non-profit that operates multiple college campuses is generally referred to as a college or university, such as Champlain Regional College, Université du Québec or University of California. In India, such an organization is not called a university or college, but a foundation. I'm going to suggest that we start calling these foundations "college systems", by analogy with university system, and treat them as notable based on the teaching work done by their operating units. Non-profit multi-campus foundations are an important part of education in India, and Wikipedia doesn't have much coverage of them. Similarly, non-profits that operate multiple high schools can be considered "high school systems" (not school districts, because that implies government-run). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be true, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that only accredited higher education institutions generally qualify for inherent notability. I don't find Bhagwan Mahavir, or any of its colleges, listed among accredited institutions at the NAAC website [21]. If I've missed something, though, I will happily withdraw the nom. Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not demonstrate notability. - Scarpy (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - out of notability. -Gazal world (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The consensus in this discussion is in favour of deleting Left-wing insurgency in Greece. As far as I can tell, however, no consensus has formed in respect of Timeline of the Left-wing insurgency in Greece.. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing insurgency in Greece[edit]

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

WP:OR; Greece has a problem of left-wing terrorism and violence, but an "insurgency" it is not, as others have noted in the talk page. This term not only magnifies a problem but suggests a coherent phenomenon, where there is none. 17N and its emulators are not the same as the anarchists setting fire to cars during police clashes, and they are entirely different from the 2008 riots. I propose deleting the main article, Left-wing insurgency in Greece, and moving Timeline of the Left-wing insurgency in Greece to List of left-wing terrorist attacks in Greece as suggested by CentreLeftRight in the talk page. Constantine ✍ 16:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Insurgency" is a very serious claim that implies an active, shooting conflict between the government and leftist groups, which obviously isn't the case here. This article is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. We would've seen mainstream coverage of this if leftists and the Greek government were in a state of war. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per FenixFeather. ——Chalk19 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and Appears to be original research. Ajf773 (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added several sources to the page, and there are plenty more out there if anyone wants to expand the article.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.TH1980 (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree, an "Insurgency" can be on a low-scall level of conflict too, there is a resistance against the Govermnent to overthrow the Govermnent and establishing a new left govermnent. In January this year I asked on the List of ongoing armed conflicts page or the "conflict" is a real "conflict" two members @Greyshark09: and @XavierGreen: described it as a really low "Insurgency" [22] this is not the same like ISIL in France which is described as a terror the there is a deference between acting like a terror organisation and being claimed as a terror organisation by a govermnent. CPA-5 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is violence, even endemic, but this is not necessarily an insurgency, per the reasons mentioned above: an insurgency is usually understood as a low-level rebellion or civil war, and this is definitely not the case in Greece. With 17N you might have had some reason to call it "urban guerrilla", but even then Greece witnessed nothing like the campaigns by RAF or the Red Brigades. At any rate, we as Wikipedians are not qualified to determine what sort of conflict this is; hence the WP:OR designation. Find WP:RS that call this an "insurgency", and you are on far safer ground. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are organized militant groups engaged in conflict against the government with armed force, it is an insurgency albeit a low level one.XavierGreen (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point maybe 17N and ELA can be indeed call "urban guerrilla". Which is in the conflict region but what about the anarchist groups like SPF or EA? The anarchist groups are violent too (but not that active and deadly as 17N and ELA were). The groups don't attack civilians like ISIL or al-Qaida would do they attack everyone who're capitalists, nationalists and Greek pro-govermnent. Of cource every rebel group can be called as a terrorist group, because there is no commonly accepted definition of "terrorism". CPA-5 (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:OR; not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added several sources to the page.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, there is an on-going string of connected radical left-wing acts of violence in Greece (ranging from very violent and widespread street rioting, to the occasional attack) - sourcing for these incidents and their relatedness is available. On the other hand, I'm not sure insurgency is the correct term (though I'm not sure what is - so that's really a move discussion issue) and the present article really just describes the 2008 Greek riots (notable riots, followed by other notable riots throughout the Greek debt crisis) - so I can see the case for WP:TNT. The topic itself could be developed into a proper article.Icewhiz (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is and has been a low intensity left wing insurgency in greece for decades, there are active militant groups opposing the greek government through armed conflict, that is the very definition of an insurgency.XavierGreen (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - need to see more sources about "insurgency" and "insurgents" to be sure.GreyShark (dibra) 09:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - after looking through most of the sources and article content, to only conclusion I can come to is that this article is a blatant violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Most of the sources XavierGreen's claims to have added are either irrelevant to the topic on hand or otherwise WP:PRIMARY. Most of the incidents listed at Timeline of the Left-wing insurgency in Greece are minor or unnoteworthy events excluding those pertaining to the 2008 Greek riots. There are many instances of people from the far-left or far-right making threats or being arrested in nations such as the United States, Canada, Italy, Germany etc. but it would be a stretch to say there is an active insurgency in these countries. Delete and merge relevant content (if any) to Terrorism in Greece. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources i added are secondary sources, and all of them are relevant to the topic and support the information that i added to the article. There are whole books on this subject, two of which i've used as sources. There are active militant groups engaged in conflict with the Greek government through armed force, that falls right in line with definition of the word insurgency. Several of 17N's attacks are certaintly notable, given that they killed the CIA station chief in Greece and several Greek politicians.XavierGreen (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at these sources then. This is little more than a list of events from what looks like a n amateur historian site. Also the last event listed was in 2002. This might be your strongest source but it is little more than a vague overview, and does not cite any specific events aside from relativly minor bank robberies and threats, which happen in many countries. This pertains only to Richard Welch, and looks more like an obituary and a primary source. This refers only to the Revolutionary Struggle, and makes no mention of a wider insurgency. This is the same as the above. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first source was not one i've added, the two books deal extensively with left wing greek militant groups, one of them, Inside Greek Terrorism by George Kassimeris, provides a good history of all of the relevant groups and the insurgency in general from its start in the 1970's to the present day.XavierGreen (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to view all the pages of the books online, but from what I can see they only mention the Revolutionary Organization 17 November and Revolutionary People's Struggle in any great detail. There is not much to suggest that they are actively raging an active insurgency against the Greek government. There are groups such as the Black Liberation Army, Black Guerrilla Family, Black Riders Liberation Party, New Black Panther Party etc. but I would call it a strech to say that there is an active African-American insurgency against the government in the United States. I could go on to list a number of left-wing and right-wing groups from a number of countries but per WP:BEANS I won't. Just because there are groups that hold radical views and have committed acts of violence does not equal an having an active insurgency. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously WP:OR. And can we please include that Timeline of the Left-wing insurgency in Greece subarticle right away, or do we have to drag that through yet another AfD? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Grimson[edit]

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

Subject is a actress. Fails WP:NACTOR. No major roles in notable film. WP:TOOSOON CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:DGtal (software library). There is consensus to delete, but also an assertion that the article has been improved, with the implication that it can be improved further. Moving it to draft space will allow it to either be improved, or cause it to be deleted as abandoned if no improvements are forthcoming. bd2412 T 18:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGtal (software library)[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. The only source in the article is the README file on the project's GitHub site. There are a couple of low-citation papers shown in GScholar which refer to the package only one might be about it rather than noting use of the package. Jbh ^Talk 18:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one source in current article. My cursory BEFORE fails to find additional ones of substance and depth outside of it. Chetsford (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one source for now. That's how a Wikipedia stub is born. More to come. M. B., Jr. (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not. You can create an article in the "Sandbox" from your talk page while you research and write e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:M._B.,_Jr./DGtal_(software_library) then move it to the non-user space when it's ready (like we used to do it in the old days) or you can follow WP:AFC - Scarpy (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not demonstrate notability. - Scarpy (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find anything notable on the subject. One award that is not notable on its own, does not make the winner of that award notable.VViking_TalkEdits 13:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm really glad users like you gents exist on Wikipedia, and make it respectable. The point is DGtal's an open source library which was granted the prestigious Geometry Processing award (yes, it will be mentioned in the article). We're talking about an ACM symposium. If this is not notable, then what would it be? It should not be a problem to write a wiki article about such a grand academic code. M. B., Jr. (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it is an open source library, that doesn't make it notable. While the Symposium on Geometry Processing is notable enough that it has its own WP page, the actual award does not, that is what I meant by notable. There are very few Reliable Sources outside the specific press releases of this one event. This is why my response to this AfD was delete. Now if you have RS that you can provide and make the article better that is great you should do it. Finally I suggest being careful with how you phrase things when responding to individuals. The way I read your first sentence above is that it is sarcastic the meaning the exact opposite of what you really said. To me I find this as being not very civil specifically that part about Avoiding condescension. But again that is just my interpretation. VViking_TalkEdits 13:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Viking. Thanks for your input. Not sure whether I understood the sarcasm part but I'm sorry if I have offended someone, somehow. Anyway, the award is a part of the symposium. Plus, many important scientific gatherings happen outside mainstream media scope. Oh and I've asked DGtal community to help with the article. Probably we'll have more notable references by Monday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. B., Jr. (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be useful for anyone who wishes to improve this article to review other Wikipedia pages on scientific and mathematical software. For example, PyMC3 demonstrates the notability of its subject matter by citing peer-reviewed research that made use of the PyMC libraries, and also by citing textbooks that use them as standard tools. If the software's creators publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal introducing their work, and that article becomes highly cited, then that's a good sign. Coverage in the science/tech press can also be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello XOR'easter Thanks for this useful comment. I will try to improve the Wikipedia article using your suggestions in the course of the weekend. So far I quickly added a few references to papers that used DGtal, etc. Pkacper (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brimkov & Barneva (2012) has reasonable depth, and the many other cited and uncited sources indicate widespread use by researchers, indicating significance in its field. I would also note that this article was nominated for deletion fresh from creation and has improved substantially during this discussion. Daask (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks enough reliable independent sources to pass WP:GNG. The article is also very promotional in nature, lauding the company's offerings but not demonstrating notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:A7 - TNT ^💖 13:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryle Ibanez[edit]

CSD'd

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

WP:TooSoon, doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC JC7V-constructive zone 13:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated for speedy deletion, history of adding this article after being deleted --VViking_TalkEdits 13:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theresia Unno[edit]

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

This was kept in the ancient days of 2005 when VfD had not yet been renamed to AfD and notability criteria were still marshmallow-soft. (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sister Theresia Unno)

But it's now 2018 and it's time to revisit this. I can't find enough independent evidence that Sister Unno is notable per our criteria. She appears by name in one book ([23]), no articles indexed by Google Scholar, no independent news articles. The Japanese article has no useful sources to poach.

Overall, there's not enough to sustain this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search term(s):

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

Comment: Forgot to note it originally but I did check her name in Japanese as well and didn't find much. (Usual caveat: I'm an English speaker). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Mollie Tibbetts[edit]

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

The creation of this page is a very typical bad judgement; there is news ~~with a hot political element,~~ and boom we have a page. The page is nominally about an event - the ~~murder~~ disappearance of a non-notable (in WP sense) woman; the death has become politicized because it appears that she was murdered and the murder may have been done by an "illegal alien" or "undocumented immigrant", as you will, but is actually all driven by the politicization of the death ahead of the 2018 midterm elections. The family has asked repeatedly for this death not to be politicized. More importantly for us, we are not a newspaper, and not part of the blogosphere. The actual significance of this event will not be known for a long time -- it is WP:TOOSOON to determine if it will be of enduring historical importance or not, and Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. A media circus =/= Notability. The arguments on the talk page are (except for what to call this page) entirely about the unencyclopedic politicized shit around this death, namely what to call the suspect, where exactly he came from, etc etc. Everyone involved in this could use their time better, working to build an encyclopedia with content summarizing accepted knowledge about topics of enduring importance rather than playing out real world politics on a page that should not exist; volunteer time is the lifeblood of this project and it is being squandered here. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I cannot imagine a closer, closing this with any outcome other than keep even if many more slow-moving people would arrive and support this. I remain disappointed that so few editors gave a thought to WP:LASTING; ruckus in talkingheadland is not a lasting effect. So; withdrawing. Per WP:WDAFD I cannot close, as there are !votes supporting the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been trying to keep the political hot-button issues out of the article at talk, rather than seeking deletion, but I think Jytdog is right about this. It'd be better for this page to go away per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: I sympathize with your position. I think it's extremely annoying how many editors have come into the article simply to call out the immigration status of the suspect, whether through inserting the label into random places with no context or by pushing for clearly politically charged terminology. However, deleting the article won't change those people's minds and it's not really a deletion criterion. While many of us might wish we could wish the politics away from this case, it's already far too late for that. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NCRIME. Redacted to show the intended NCRIME, rather than my typo of just CRIME.(Full disclosure - I am the original author of this article) The inability of editors to keep politics out of the discussion on the talk page - and, as a result, the article - has nothing to do with whether or not the article should remain. While I recognize the wishes of the family, they don't get to dictate what we do on Wikipedia. The article is well written, well sourced, and the case drew widespread attention in the news both before and after her body was found. I see no valid reason for deletion. Strikerforce^Talk 13:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the wishes of the family don't drive what we do. The nomination says "more importantly" and nothing you have written addresses the core rationale -- namely WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. There is no question that there are lots of sources; our content is also not driven by media circuses, and you don't deal with that or the unknown enduring importance of this event. I do understand that some people view WP as a newspaper and part of the blogosphere, and ignore our mission to summarize accepted knowledge about topics of enduring importance. Their !votes should be weighted accordingly. Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out a flaw in your nomination - "there is news with a hot political element, and boom we have a page". I created the page before the suspect was identified. At the time of creation, there was no "political element". I'd ask you to remove that statement from your nomination, please, as it is not accurate, @Jytdog:. Strikerforce^Talk 13:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change that WP:NOTNEWS applies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted; I apologize for my error. Yes there was even less of an argument for notability when this was created. Correcting that has actually strengthened the deletion argument. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you address the standards set by NCRIME? From the guideline, Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred since that would not make the matter less notable. Strikerforce^Talk 14:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:CRIME is about notability of people; what you are quoting is WP:NCRIME, which is about events. The key words there are "meets the above guidelines" See the WP:LASTING section above that. Please keep in mind, that all of the notability essays are attempts to implement WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE part of WP:NOT and remain subject to all the rest of NOT and the rest of the P&G. That is exactly why WP:LASTING is there. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Strikerforce, when you change your comments as you did here, you should redact, per WP:REDACT; just editing as you did, makes subsequent comments absurd. Please go back and show those changes per WP:REDACT. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's take this step by step. 1) Redaction - Too many arguments to address has led me to mix up my comments. CRIME, rather than the original NCRIME. This article is about the crime itself, not the victim. CRIME describes the notability of the victim, as I have stated above, which leads us to 2) LASTING, which states that events - which is what the root of the article is all about, not Mollie Tibbetts, herself - "are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.", which goes on to say' that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).". To that regard, the 11,000,000+ results on Google mentioned by @GreenMeansGo: below clearly establish the "widely covered in diverse sources" part of the guideline. 3) In my opinion, DEPTH, CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and DIVERSE all apply here. 4) We're now at my previously mentioned NCRIME. Your whole argument seems to rest on the opinion that the subject does not meet LASTING, which is very crystal ball-like of you, wouldn't you say? You're making the argument, as I understand it, that we should base the entire discussion here about whether or not the case will have lasting effect. I don't feel that NOTNEWS applies to this article. Strikerforce^Talk 15:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Redaction Strikerforce^Talk 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not gone back and redacted, and you remain confused. NCRIME is about events; CRIME is about the victim. And you are skipping right over WP:LASTING which requires that the significance be known. It is not known. I will not reply further. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly knew what I intended, based on your comments. I will note, however, that I did - in fact - make such a notation. It appears to have been caught in an edit conflict. I have reinserted. To address your statement about LASTING, you clearly are not following the rationale that I laid out immediately prior to this comment. LASTING is not the end all be all of notability. It is a factor to consider, but not necessarily a requirement, given the other parts of the guideline that I laid out for you. Strikerforce^Talk 15:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For emphasis, this article is not about the victim. If that were the case, I would likely agree that she, herself, does not meet notability. The article is about the crime itself. Therefore, NCRIME is the applicable standard and the article meets notability, per my rationale above. Strikerforce^Talk 15:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, all the bolding is just clutter. The only person citing guidelines about the victim is you. No one thinks this is about the victim. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A comment pointing out how a form of markup showing emphasis of a point is clutter is, in itself, clutter, don't you think? To the premise of your comment, however, I'm citing guidelines about the event, not the victim. You are still trying to use an improper rationale - one that would apply to Mollie Tibbetts, herself, and not the crime - to delete the article. That's the fact that I've been trying to get you to see. Strikerforce^Talk 16:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused about the deletion rationale; there is nothing I can do about that.Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is well sourced, and it is too soon to tell whether or not the case will have enduring importance. If the article can not be kept, it should be redirected to List of people who disappeared mysteriously: post-1970. BTW, should this deletion discussion take place while a move discussion is in progress (albeit, the move discussion has been open for almost one week)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC
Comment No, the presence of the simultaneous move discussion is neither here nor there. If it's found this article should be deleted, then it'd be deleted regardless of the name it is moved to. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - TOOSOON is an essay, and the determining factor in whether something is TOOSOON, is whether it is notable. RECENTISM has no bearing on notability. NOTNEWS actually does, but having received sustained coverage for more than a month now, it's difficult to imagine myself convinced by an argument that this is akin to routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. Whether this is a karmic net negative compared with these editors spending equal time on perhaps expanding the 664 stubs related to the history of the US Supreme Court, may in fact be both true and compelling. But it's not a valid rationale for deletion. If it were we'd have long ago emptied out most or all of Category:Kardashian family and Category:Professional wrestling. GMG ^talk 14:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and the project would be better for emptying out those categories. WP is open and people can do a very wide range of things here. Where WP is great, it is because people do what they should do; the places where it sucks, is where people have done simply what they can. Your !vote does not reflect our mission -- what we should do. "Sustained" is not about time scales on the order or days or even a few weeks, btw - of course this will remain "in the news" until the matter is resolved legally, at least. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't be attempting to discredit the !votes of others. It's bad form. Please stick to policy. Strikerforce^Talk 14:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree it would be a good idea to empty out those two categories; that said, WP:OSE would say it doesn't matter if there are other things on Wikipedia that shouldn't be. We can still remove this thing that shouldn't be here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is well said, and I do not intend to comment on all !votes, just the early ones that bring flawed arguments. After that it would indeed be bludgeoning. I wanted to add that WP:SUSTAINED is an effort to make the notion of "enduring importance" somehow concrete, and we have no indication of that for this event. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What we should do, is provide a resource for free knowledge on any topic that has available sourcing with which to write a well-sourced and neutral encyclopedia article. That's notability in a nutshell. But we don't get to impose a value judgement on what notable topics we should work on first, and then only after Category:Byzantine Empire stubs is emptied will we allow editors to work on Category:New Zealand television stubs. We take what we can get, we let people work where their interests lay, and we're grateful for it. As a crotchety old fart who's spent half of their editing in the postbellum US, I wish it weren't the case, but it is. GMG ^talk 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- encyclopedia article are the key words there. WP:SUSTAINED goes to the heart of what it means to be an encyclopedia as opposed to a newspaper or the many other things that WP is not. Per WP:NOT which defines our mission. Doing what we should does involve judgement; I specifically used the word "judgement" in my nomination for exactly that reason. My nomination asks folks to consider our mission as expressed in WP:NOT and to judge based on the mission. Where is WP:NOT, in your discussion here? (real question, not rhetorical) Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not original reporting. It's not routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. It's hardly breaking news a month later. It's not a biography related to a single event; the biography is incorporated in the article on the event as recommended by NOTNEWS. If you don't consider a few million sources published over the course of more than a month to meet the standard of sustained widespread coverage, then I think you are using a definition that is other than that normally applied by the community. GMG ^talk 14:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what NOTNEWS is about, and again, "sustained" is a much longer timeframe. As I noted above see WP:LASTING - we have no idea of the significance of this event (how could we?). It remains odd to me, that on the one hand you seem to bemoan people filling WP with trivia, yet you !vote to keep here. (btw, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian which was a learning experience for me). I'm interested in your reply, but I will probably respond only briefly to avoid cluttering this up. But thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I guess we are being cluttered. I do bemoan much of Wikipedia. Pop culture especially. Things like this god awful mess and this god awful mess, both of which should still be deleted. I would probably be a solid delete/userfy if this had been nominated the day it was created, when it was just a disappearance, before it took on an international political context, a context that is still very much growing, even in the past 24 hours. But at this point, the subject is not just a routine disappearance; it is a multi-faceted national political event, covered internationally. It's in a topic area (contemporary American politics) in which I spend comparatively limited amount of my time, not because the event is trivial, but because the content is transient, and the entire article will likely be rewritten over the coming months. Whereas work on topics like this has a great deal more permanence. But if other's want to work on it, that's their volunteer time. It's just as likely they'd be loitering on reddit if they weren't, and no guarantee they'd be helping me get this through it's GA review instead. GMG ^talk 15:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying.Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, there is a lot I justify wasting my time on wikipedia by thinking "Well at-least it is better than being on reddit"..

Also while things in American politics have often less permanence, it is still important to have some editors willing to work on it and keep things NPOV because of how many people rely on wikipedia on these things.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is stuff that belongs on reddit, and stuff that belongs here. This is not reddit -- not a place to hash out the meaning or spin of breaking news. We should "report" when there are RS that describe the enduring significance of things. Not fight to shape them. It is more difficult for the editing community when this kind of "hot political" news happens on a topic where we already have an article. We should not even have this one. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page has now been moved to Killing of Mollie Tibbetts Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a cardinal example of sinning against WP:NOTNEWS. A murder story that's barely a month old? It's important to some people to play it up because of the perpetrator, but nobody knows whether this will "take" at this short remove, whatever the vice president says. The There is nothing about this that isn't us repeating routine news coverage. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Like it or not, this story has made international news,[24][25][26] and very clearly meets WP:GNG. This may be wishful thinking, but if allowable it would be good if this AFD could be closed sooner rather than later, per WP:SNOW, as it creates an ugly red box across what is currently a very high traffic article. — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GMG and Amakuru. It was a high-profile disappearance/homicide case even before the alleged suspect's immigration status came into play. If anything, the politicization angle actually confers even more notability, cf. Shooting of Kathryn Steinle. GAB^gab 15:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I will do this. User:GeneralizationsAreBad, would you please directly address WP:LASTING? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that there is no need, as I have sufficiently done so above. Strikerforce^Talk 15:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each person needs to have their own !vote rationale and you did not address what LASTING says here, you just explained why you want to ignore it. I do understand that you are ignoring it; perhaps others will agree with you; perhaps not. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand that LASTING is just a factor in considering notability and not the end all be all? In beating LASTING to death, you've been ignoring the very next sentence on that page, which is, Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). You've been shown, by @GreenMeansGo: that the subject of the article - the death / killing / murder / whatever editor X would like to call it today of Mollie Tibbetts - has received such coverage. Strikerforce^Talk 15:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that LASTING is just one criteria. It is an important one that directly ties NCRIME into the rest of our mission to be an encyclopedia. It should not be ignored. I have never questioned the extent of coverage; that is necessary but not sufficient for a subject to be notable. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a high-profile killing which has received a great deal of coverage in the MSM & continues to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep – Article is very well-sourced. Even if coverage stopped today, the case passes WP:GNG by two miles and notability is not temporary. Neutrality issues can be corrected, if any. Recent move to "Killing of Mollie Tibbets" proves this. AfD is not cleanup. — JFG ^talk 16:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as per JFG and Strikerforce. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 17:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think strikerforce should have created this article when he did, and he has done this in the past (creating articles before there is evidence that they may be notable), but this have received more media attention than most murders and has political implications. Natureium (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I created -one- such article. I feel as though you're implying that this is something for which I'm a habitual offender. Strikerforce^Talk 17:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this must have been the other article I was thinking of when I was trying to figure out how many NOTNEWS or borderline articles are being created on wikipedia by various editors. Natureium (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that I did prematurely create an article about the Texas parking garage collapse, but that has been my only mistake of this nature to date. Strikerforce^Talk 17:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily fulfills WP:GNG. Not only was the disappearance national news for a whole month (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), the following impact on politics makes this article also fulfill WP:EFFECT. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to also add that the nominator's reasoning is entirely illegitimate. No Wikipedia policy indicates that an article should be deleted merely because a bunch of editors with an agenda try to demonize the suspect's immigration status. If that were the case, then we should just delete all articles that constantly get derailed by right wing concern trolls (Patriarchy, White privilege, Anita Sarkeesian, etc.) – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. WP:LASTING is part of WP:NCRIME and WP:NOTNEWS is policy. You may choose to ignore the relevant N essay and policy, but you have invalidated your !vote by calling this illegitimate. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, attacking other people's !votes. You may disagree with their reasoning, but nothing "invalidated" his !vote. Please stop attacking the "legitimacy" of other people's !votes. It's very uncivil of you, quite frankly. Additional comment: At this point, why are you even bothering to respond to those opinions with which you disagree? You've made the same point, the same arguments, repeatedly. There's an old saying about a dead horse that would seem to apply here. Strikerforce^Talk 17:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC) additional comment Strikerforce^Talk 17:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Nope, I was responding to an incorrect claim about the legitimacy of the nomination. As I already noted, I am aware that many people choose to ignore aspects of P&G; such a choice is what it is.Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling out your nomination reason as illegitimate, because it doesn't cite policy but instead is a rant about politicization and how the talk page is bogged down in politics. I agree with your assessment, but my claim is that that isn't a criterion for deletion, and that's why your nomination is flawed. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is illegitimate because it is patently ridiculous, and fails WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm sure this AFD was well-intentioned, but with all due respect you should have taken a step back and asked yourself whether an internationally high-profile homicide case really fails GNG before starting it. — Amakuru (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly for us, we are not a newspaper, and not part of the blogosphere. = WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP.

The actual significance of this event will not be known for a long time = WP:LASTING, WP:SUSTAINED.

I cannot help it if you do not recognize the policies and guidelines when they are actually applied.

By the way, if there are RS that describe what the actual lasting significance of this event is -- what it has changed in the real world that has lasting significance -- please cite them. No WP:CRYSTALBALL please - actual significance, actual change. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Can you refrain from letting arguments get personal? Criticize others' arguments instead of insulting their ability to understand policy, especially when the user in question is an admin who the community specifically agreed has a good handle on policy. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:FenixFeather, I am responding to the claim that the nomination is incompetent. It was not. It is legitimate. I await your strike but do not expect it. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If GNG is met - and I would say that the consensus here is that it has been met by this article's subject - is it appropriate to delve deeper into more specialized notability criteria? Strikerforce^Talk 18:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point, it may be appropriate to consider a snow keep. As stated by others, GNG is met. The nominator's use of LASTING as their primary argument against the keep !votes in the discussion does not appear to be correctly applied. This is a high-traffic article that has been graded by five different WikiProjects as C-class. The crime, whether we or the Tibbetts family like it or not, has been prominently discussed on a national level as part of the immigration debate. We have a well-sourced article that has no business being deleted. Strikerforce^Talk 17:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should run for a while to get wider input. Am curious what the less immediacy-driven !votes will look like. I'll withdraw if it turns into actual snow. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful back-and-forth

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

We're currently at 10-3, in favor of keeping the article, and the rationale being given by those !votes in favor of keeping the article are more in line with policy than what has been presented by those wishing to delete it, and you don't believe that we're not already at SNOW status? Okay. Strikerforce^Talk 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can count. This has run only about 4 hours; people are sleeping and at work, etc. I fully expected there to be many keeps based on "There are so many sources OMG!!!!" and knowing that many people ignore LASTING and NOTNEWS but rather think WP should cover breaking news, I will not be shocked if the page is kept. But there is an actual discussion to be had, and having it is a good thing. I get it that you are worked up and offended; that is not my problem. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop with the personal attacks? This now makes at least three different times in this discussion that you have been incivil toward other editors. I am neither worked up, nor offended, and you would not have any way of knowing otherwise. Strikerforce^Talk 18:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the discussion above -- look for bolding. Who is yelling here? Let's each step back and allow other !votes to roll in, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding for emphasis is "yelling"? That's a new one on me. ALL CAPS, sure, but not bolding. Strikerforce^Talk 18:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out folks. GMG ^talk 18:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment on the subject - even if that were true (again, it's a new one on me), yelling and personal attacks are completely different things. "I get that you are worked up and offended; that is not my problem", "I await your strike but do not expect it" (rather snide, wouldn't you say?), "You remain confused... I will not reply further", "You are confused... there is nothing more that I can do about that", "but you have invalidated your !vote...", and "I cannot help it if you do not recognize..." are not exactly calm and civil things to say to other editors. You can make the same points and not be so insulting in tone. Strikerforce^Talk 18:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event passes WP:NCRIME; also per the above arguments by GreenMeansGo and Amakuru. I would also support a snow keep closure --Zingarese talk · contribs 18:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received widespread coverage in national media. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. The breadth and depth of media coverage has conferred notability on the crime. Side note, her family's wishes about the crime being politicized have nothing to do with whether or not the article should be deleted and should not have been mentioned in the nom. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep Jytdog should consider withdrawing (or agreeing to let someone else snow close). GNG is obviously met. This has been front-page news in Iowa for a month, has a lot of national coverage, and comments from Donald Trump. If we keep nearly every stabbing in Germany, we should definitely keep this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:power~enwiki I hear you. I will go to bed in a couple of hours and will likely withdraw this, last thing. In the hatted bit above, I said I would not be surprised if this goes keep; the conversation is worth having. I am however disappointed that no keep !voters have even addressed the questions that WP:LASTING calls us to consider. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you sources of individuals speculating this will have an impact in the November elections [27] or on future legislation [28], but it's impossible to prove something will happen in the future, so it's not a reasonable standard to use for recent events. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTING is exactly part of WP:NEVENTS; it remains disappointing that so many editors confuse ruckus in talkingheadland with actual lasting effects. These are the times we live in; it is not a big surprise. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single business enterprise[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay. Rathfelder (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is such a thing as the "single business enterprise doctrine", and it ought to have an article if it lacks one now. That said, what we have here is an editorial against supposed abuse of said doctrine; it's not salvageable as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Hashmi[edit]

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

The creator claims (at the talk page of the article) that the current version is very different from the one deleted in February. Whereas this is correct (for example, it is much shorter), I still do not see sufficient notability for the person to pass WP:N. Converting speedy to AfD. Ymblanter (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. I've reviewed all the sources, and see nothing but casual namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. --Saqib (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV to merit an article. Agree with above contributors that the subject only has passing mentions in the references provided. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Saqib wrote just what I felt when i first saw this article. In particular, WP:SIGOV is not met here and also per Ymblanter. JC7V-constructive zone 14:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saqib explained.Saff V. (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the reliable sources I used in the article that, in my opinion, clearly cover him significantly, I would say the article deserves to be included in the encyclopedia. Lawrence52 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lawrence52 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG Mantosa (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Computer science. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Informatics Practices[edit]

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

This article is not noteworthy enough for an article on Wikipedia. Said subject is only taught in one school. Torrent01 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted by Eastmain (talk · contribs · count) using the {{afd2}} template. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informatics practices to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informatics Practices (capital P) to match original article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence that this is a generally recognised category. Searches for sources indicate that the expression is entirely or almost entirely restricted to one high school exam syllabus (though my impression is that it is an exam taken by a number of schools, rather than just one school). In any case there does not seem to be substantial coverage (if any coverage) of it as a subject in its own right, as opposed to just the title of that school syllabus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Incidentally, I am puzzled as to why Torrent01 has created this AfD, since he or she removed a PROD to do so. If he/she thinks that the article should be deleted then why not just leave the PROD in place? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually this subject seems to be a standard part of Indian curriculum for computer science. Google search shows 175,000 hits, with another 11,000 for the singular "Informatic Practices" including non-Indian articles [29]. So it's clearly not taught at just one high school. Two high schools with WP articles link to the page: St. Norbert School Indore and The Abu Dhabi Indian School ‎ —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original PROD was many years old (2009!), and I figured that re-tagging it as a plain old AFD would make more sense, as well as give the situation more attention. Torrent01 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Torrent01: You must have misread something. The PROD dated from 13:55, 7 August 2018‎, and the article was in fact only created on 26 July 2018‎ . The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Computer science as a subfield without the coverage to support another article. It would basically be a content fork, too, since as far as I can see (having read a bunch of syllabi) it's a large subset of computer science. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Computer science both due to lack of sufficient sourcing (though it just seems like it's not suitably written about - it's obviously very active) but it more reads like a sub-set of CS as noted above. I would certainly think it's possible for this to break into a legitimate contentfork article at some point, and potentially it's own article if differences can be indicated as sufficient. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Passes WP:V, not WP:GNG (info is good, can't be its own article). Redditaddict6 9 19:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. MER-C 13:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.exchange[edit]

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

Is a newly registered TLD ipso facto notable? Nowadays they can be registered by anyone, so I see to fail why a new one should not meet the usual criteria.

Fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV Kleuske (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article so I'll just describe my thought process here and let the people with experience weigh in. I saw this on the requested articles list and a quick search showed that there are articles for similar gTLDs (e.g. .college, .cloud, .ninja) so I assumed this was notable and would help fill in the gaps. Rakanikan (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rakanikan: articles can usually only exist if they satisfy Wikipedia:N. That usually means that the article subject is covered in reliable sources. There are also a couple of things that Wikipedia is not to consider. Many other TLDs are not notable either and should be deleted as well. wumbolo ^^^ 20:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donuts (company). Not notable. wumbolo ^^^ 20:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains. I don't see reliable sources covering this as a TLD and I agree that it's not inherently notable now there are so many domains. Redirecting seems fair, but List of Internet top-level domains, which mentions it, is a better target than Donuts (company), which does not. › Mortee _talk 22:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains per Mortee. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains per Mortee. Daask (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus WP:NPASR. So Why 15:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ghulam Mohiyyuddin Gilani[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The person is a founder of a religious movement, played part in Pakistan movement, his contributions are widely recognized in Pakistan. Passes WP:BIO. And yes he belonged to the time when internet was not available in most of the places. Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know You need to establish the WP:N by providing significant coverage in independent RS. How does he passes WP:BIO? Merely throwing support votes is not going to work. --Saqib (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability criteria. The sources are mostly not independent and the only one that may be is just a biography. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pakistan is a developing country and moreover, the subject of the article belonged to the time when internet was not available at most places, and therefore there isn't much coverage on internet regarding him. Knightrises10 (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sufficient justification to keep the article. --Saqib (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person was certainly a notable person. If allowed some time, I can try to add some more references to it. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For now, you can establish the WP:N here in order to rescue the page from getting deleted. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spent some more time on it and all I could find was 2 references to Dawn (newspaper) and 1 reference to GoogleBooks which I added to the article. He died in 1974 and this was the best I could do. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources still fails to establish notability. --Saqib (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST as evidenced by the current references, including those added recently by Ngrewal1. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrewal1 failed to establish the WP:N.. He cited a few references but does not provided significant coverage via multiple, independent RS as required by GNG. --Saqib (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it suffices that an academic book published by Bloomsbury Publishing mentions that the devotion to the subject and his father is the very reason pilgrims visit Golra Sharif, a place that sees millions of pilgrims annually. What else do you expect? A daily appearance on Fox News? — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be kind enough to quote the excerpt here? --Saqib (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The principal reason for which so many people visit Golra Sharif is devotion to the present pīr as well as his father (Babuji) and Grandfather (Pir Meher Ali Shah)."[30] — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin At-least two other articles of similar nature created by the same user were deleted recently. Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gilani and Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gillani. --Saqib (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Aren't you repeating or writing the same exact name spellings above twice? Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gilani. I don't understand the logic here. If some article creator's one article is deleted on Wikipedia, are you trying to imply here that all his created articles are then 'suspect' and should be deleted? I hope each individual article is judged on its merits. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were two seperate pages. I don't know if they were of same person? I just wanted to let the closing admin know that the creator of this bio has previously created pages on people having no notablity. --Saqib (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I can understand anybody's irritation over finding some article creator's attempts to create 2 separate articles for the same person on Wikipedia. Personally it appeared to me that the subject of the article Syed Ghulam Mohiyyuddin Gilani (1891 – 1974) may have had a substantial number of spiritual followers in his local area and therefore was very notable and respectable person to his followers. To be fair to him, I spent some time on the article and added 3 new references to the article and said in my comment that was the best I could do because of the times he lived in. I know I ran into a WP:NEXIST situation as mentioned above by kashmiri. Hope you don't take it personally, Saqib. Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite relist, no delete !voters revisited their !vote after more sources were presented. So Why 15:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Tuke[edit]

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

No coverage outside of failed U.S. Senate candidacy. Never held public office. Fails notability guidelines: WP:N, WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. Redditaddict6 9 13:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating statement makes it clear that no WP:BEFORE search was run. Tuke has has been in news regularly and frequently since the 1990s. His activities written about in several books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of three refs has been re-purposed; I deleted the ref. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. The fact that he received coverage in multiple feature articles in reliable sources in separate instances as the party chairman and a senate candidate gives him the required notability. Teemu08 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing remarkable or notable, per GNG. Trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOLITICIAN failure. Number 5 7 16:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tired of these non-notable American would-be politicians. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:NPOL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contrary to what is claimed above, the coverage does not rise to the level to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 03:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, unelected candidates for office are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just for having their name on the ballot — they have to win the election, not just run in it, to be presumed notable as a politician. But this makes no other strong claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article independently of his candidacy. And no, the fact that some degree of campaign coverage exists does not get a candidate over WP:GNG all by itself, as Teemu08 wrongly claims above, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some degree of campaign coverage — to make a candidate notable on pure GNG grounds without winning the election first or having standing prior notability for other reasons, the campaign coverage has to explode to a degree way out of proportion with what other candidates could also show, as in Christine O'Donnell or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. But this isn't showing any evidence that Tuke's candidacy is anywhere near that high bar of specialness. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep: Here's a profile that ran in The Chattanoogan years before Tuke ran for office. [Clement Names Bob Tuke As State Finance Chairman. And some crocodile tears form Matthew Continetti in the Weekly Standard during Kerry v. Bust, 2004: "On August 11, for example, Bob Tuke, the Tennessee state chair of Veterans for Kerry, told a Nashville radio station that...." He was a very active Dem. before he ran, and also active in civic affairs. In the 1990s he was President of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, an active, national organization back then because adoption laws were being reformed nationwide. He was widely interviewed on the topic, intensely interviewed in states like Florida that had major adoption Law battles. (Apologizing for using a paywalled Proquest news archive search.) More to the point is his activity in reforming Tennessee Adoption law. He is one of three individuals credited with getting the new law passed (Heartfelt lobby effort moves adoption rights reform toward passage: Paula Wade The Commercial Appeal Nashville Bureau. The Commercial Appeal; Memphis, Tenn. [Memphis, Tenn]22 May 1995: A.1. :"Rep. Joe Fowlkes (D-Cornersville), sponsor of the bill in the House. He readily admits the lobbying of Jackson adoptee Caprice East, adoption activist Denny Glad of Memphis and Nashville lawyer Bob Tuke have sold the bill to his colleagues.", and more similar. Also: He's an attorney and had a central role drafting the new law.(Judge bars opening of adoption records; Privacy concerns hold up Tenn. law: [Final Edition] Paula Wade and Shirley Downing The Commercial Appeal. The Commercial Appeal; Memphis, Tenn. [Memphis, Tenn]27 June 1996: A.1.; Ruling makes law a model, says backer of open adoption files: [Final Edition]From Staff and Wire Reports. The Commercial Appeal; Memphis, Tenn. [Memphis, Tenn]25 Aug 1996: B.1.; COURT OK'S OPENING RECORDS OF ADOPTION IN TENN. LAW TRIES TO WEIGH RIGHTS, JUDGES SAY: [Final Edition] Shirley Downing The Commercial Appeal. The Commercial Appeal; Memphis, Tenn. [Memphis, Tenn]12 Feb 1997: A.1.) and more similar. In addition, there was a good deal of civic leader coverage, some in non-Tennessee papers like Atlanta Journal Constitution. He was chairman of the committee that approved the plan to hire Robert A. M. Stern and build the $80 million Nashville Public Library.(Chamber board casts lot for libraries; Ward, Getahn. Nashville Banner; Nashville, Tenn. [Nashville, Tenn]11 June 1997: A.5. "The task force... its chairman, Bob Tuke."E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this could all be added into the article then I see this potentially not being deleted completely. WP:TNT could be enacted. This could be merged with the Kerry campaign. I see a lot of places this could go, but I don't think Keep is one of them. He was active, but the coverage isn't national. I bet a lot of state campaign chairs who haven't held any other office aren't on Wikipedia for the same reason; fails WP:GNG. How many local people like Tuke are recognized nationwide? Redditaddict6 9 14:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He did get national press as an expert on adoption, search "Bob Tuke" + adoption .E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't appear to be too widely recognized, unless I'm looking at the wrong one. I'm still in favor of deletion. Just because he known stuff on adoption, helped run a state campaign, and chaired a state party doesn't make him notable since he was never elected. Redditaddict6 9 17:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

searches on "Bob Tuke" + adoption in good new archived, or - to a lesser extent - in gNews bring up many articles where journalists interview and cite him on adoption law. It seems to have been a hot topic is several states around the turn of the century. He was a go-to expert.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep per E.M.Gregory and hope someone expands the article accordingly. While I still prefer to see a good article with greater focus on the subject the article, there's enough sources with moderate depth and multiple viewpoints that we can produce a multifaceted article. Daask (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep this [31] Tennessee layer publication documents his role in writing the adoption law. He is also mentioned in several books, A Paler Shade of Red: The 2008 Presidential Election in the South (University of Arkansas Press, 2010) sources his roles as Chair of the Democratic Party and of the Obama campaign in Tennessee [32], some pushback on Tuke in Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama (small, but real, publishing House in San Francisco)[33] by Tim Wise. and more. I think there's just enough pre-campaign notability to keep, a solid bio can be sourced from election coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think any of those sources make a showing of notability above and beyond what is routine. He's certainly not notable for his campaign, and there aren't other sources that would make him notable. The adoption source especially is just a name-drop and an article he wrote himself. Sticking with delete. SportingFlyer talk 05:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled by this comment, since searches bring up many articles where he is quoted and his explanations written up by major daily papers in various states an an expert on adoption law.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why you would think being quoted in a few articles on adoption law would establish notability. A search for '"bob tuke" adoption' doesn't bring up any significant coverage of him. SportingFlyer talk 17:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When journalists interviewed him about the adoption reforms in Tennessee (where he co-wrote and lobbied for the new law) he was being interviewed as a player. But when the AP called him to ask about a Florida law required mothers to "to list her name, age and description, along with descriptions of any men who could have fathered the child. The ads must run once a week for four weeks in a newspaper in the city where the child was believed to have been conceived." the reporter phoned Tuke as a recognized legal expert. "There's no comparable law in any other state, and it's really hard to imagine how a legislature could pass such a law if they thought about it," said Bob Tuke, president of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. "It treats women like chattel." It shows that he was recognized as a legal expert on the subject. A lot of newspapers/reporters used him as a recognized expert over the years, just a couple of examples: (Grandmother: Russians lied to us, Hall, Kristin M. Telegraph - Herald; Dubuque, Iowa [Dubuque, Iowa]11 Apr 2010: A.3.) "Bob Tuke, a member of American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, said abandonment charges against the family could depend on whether the boy was a U.S. citizen. It wasn't clear if the adoption had become final but..."; (A PRIVATE MATTER NO LONGER THE STIGMA OF ADOPTION FADES, BUT SOME STINGS PERSIST: [Third Edition], Pertman, Adam. Boston Globe; Boston, Mass. [Boston, Mass]08 Mar 1998: A1."""They're afraid the birth parents are going to want their kids back or, worse, the kids will want to return to their birth parents," says Bob Tuke, an adoption attorney in Tennessee who has two adopted children. "But neither of those things almost ever happens. And the adoptive parents who stay with the process find there's nothing to feel threatened about." It shows that he was recognized as an expert on the subject. no more, but no less.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument for notability is cumulative, it adds together notability as a lawyer, as an advocate who got a significant reform bill passed on adoption, as a legal expert, and as a party activist who chaired the Democratic Party of Tennessee and several Tennessee campaigns, including Obama. All of this is was covered in the press before he ran for office.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With that in mind, based on the review of the sources, I still don't think he passes WP:GNG - I highly doubt we would keep an article or even have an article on him at all but for his campaign. SportingFlyer talk 01:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can those who asked for deletion revisit their views in the light of improvements to the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets wp:GNG. --Doncram (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: Here'a a profile from well before the candidacy:CHAIRMAN BOB TUKE BEGINS HIS FIRST WEEK OF WORK AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TENNESSEE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, The Tennessee Tribune; Nashville, Tenn. [Nashville, Tenn21 July 2005: A3.}]

This coverage does not help WP:GNG. It's from a local source (not significant coverage) about something he did that wasn't notable (holding an unelected office). Redditaddict6 9 22:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that I began my first cmment in this discussion by linking to a profile in The Chattanoogan, local coverage does "count," although it does not suffice. Redditaddict69, as has been mentioned by editors at other discussions and on your talk page, it can take time to understand the guidelines that apply to these discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None of the "keep" arguments present any policy-based arguments. They cite "in-depth" sources, but fail to give any examples. Therefore "delete" is the only rational choice. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe Flore[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant - it's a local place that's mostly covered in local blogs and secondary papers. As I'm removing promotional content from the article, it's becoming clear that there's not enough to justify this place actually having an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The restaurant has only local coverage, which fails WP:SIGCOV and thus WP:GNG. I found a mention in a guidebook and another, but gSearches more often turn up the more well known Paris restaurant with the same name, such as this guidebook reference. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This SF institution is well-beloved and the article has been targeted for content and source deletion. Plenty of reliable sources exist to make this a good or even great article. [34] The latest stable version before being targeted exemplifies its local popularity and it's the only SF restaurant allowed to carry marijuana and one of it's owners is a renowned entertainment activist and former commissioner. Pi has variously called that wards spam and other things but it's noteworthy this place gets local awards yearly. Shame on knifing the article and not finding a way to improve it instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:3164:6740:418C:B4A6 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thirty-plus sources exist and more can be used, one recently was just published a month ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:3164:6740:418C:B4A6 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
’’’keep’’’ Sources abound for a decent article despite the current chopped down version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:76 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SPA Comments and Unsure - there are 2 SPAs and one near SPA above, though their comments aren't directly evident as incorrect (flawless knowledge of procedures etc). My own $0.02 after dodging the sources that caused my anti-viral to flare up suggests a good possibility that notability is satisfied. It comes down to a reliable sources dispute on the papers I would say, which I'm not confident enough on, either way, to make a specific !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we need to restart the debate from scratch, with more experienced editors giving their views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage appears to be the routine local coverage expected for just about any restaurant. Nothing significant or in-depth. MB 02:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons stated above. Sourcing from reliable news outlets cover this venue as much as any other. You would expect local awards but they also have other in-depth sources. This used to be a reasonable article, I'm afraid the sliced one is paltry but a good one is do-able. 2601:645:8102:CC63:8D1D:5B42:FF3C:4349 (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable with local coverage only. Lots of SPA keeps says it all Lyndaship (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The restaurant in the article has only local coverage, which means it fails WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG. The article is a fluff piece that has had it's promotional content mostly cut out, but the article does little more then let readers know this local eatery exists and implicitly wants readers to check it out if they are in town. A huge number of restaurants go through ownership changes or acquire liquor licenses as well, which is what most of the article is about. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bodegas Marqués de Murrieta[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NOTPROMO. ref1 (winedoctor) is paywalled and I have my doubts regarding RSnes. ref2 (Guardian) is a brief product review of "Marques de Murrieta Capellania 2002" (sold for 12 quid) within a review of multiple other wines - and is not about the organization. ref3 (thedrinksbusiness) - seems like a trade magazine, this is a 8 line profile (within a long slideshow) of the chief winemaker (María Vargas) at the vineyard but is not about the vineyard itself. BEFOREing I mainly see a few product reviews and directory style listings. Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's one of the oldest and most famous Spanish wine producers (and one which doesn't need much "promotion"). It produces some of the country's most iconic and well-known Riojas. The article is a stub, so of course the current sourcing is not 100%. Obviously it's not something everyone will have heard of or care about, but the point of an encyclopedia is to document things that may be obscure to some people so long as they have real-world notability and history, even if only in a narrow field. Far more informative than documenting the minutiae of every single current-day political spat second-by-second. See this, this this, this and this. N-HH talk/edits 10:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being known for good wine is not sufficient. The five links provided seem a tad promotional trade magazines/sites - and I would question their reliability and independence (in the particular pieces of coverage) required per WP:ORGCRIT.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about "being known for good wine", or even about that at all. And trade/specialist publications and writers aren't good sources for information about the trade they cover? Sure. Anyway, I've added some detail and references. There's plenty of scope for expanding it further, assuming someone doesn't just decide to delete it simply because, like you, they've never heard of it themselves. It's pretty standard to have pages on notable historic wine estates, eg [35]. N-HH talk/edits 13:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, they even got the (former) king of Spain to come and open their new buildings, but yeah, not notable. N-HH talk/edits 14:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a historic winery. I'm satisfied with the various mentions of the winery and their wines that come up in google books: [36]. Sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katende Muhammad[edit]

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

Promotional article about a photographer who doesn't appear to be notable. Most of the articles about him are either passing mentions or from unreliable sources.

Only claim to fame is winning best photographer at a wedding expo, but unsourced Gbawden (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fairly run of the mill, and promotional. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Megall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. Appears to be a promotional effort for a young-ish painter. A search finds very few independent RS. Previously deleted in 2012, see old discussion at right. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as many/most of the venues are Vanity exhibitions, biennials and awards. See User:Theredproject/Predatory Exhibitions and Vanity Galleries.--Theredproject (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ways of Ascent[edit]

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

No evidence found that book or author are notable. Fram (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find where this book has received coverage in reliable sources like newspapers that would show notability. It's admirable that the author was able to publish, but publication by itself is not something that would pass WP:NBOOK. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete book not mentioned at WorldCat. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. Auldhouse (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rakuten trade[edit]

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

Company does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added a basic reference, but see that as no more than basic verification that this is a company going about its business. No evidence of attained notability. (Note there have been several article instances speedy-deleted previously, both as Rakuten trade and as Rakuten Trade.)AllyD (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a veritable blizzard of coverage on Rakuten Trade. Most of it drops out from failing reliable/independent (with the latter including a few reliable sources using press releases/interviews). Most of the remainder drops out after failing WP:CORPDEPTH. The remainder fails WP:SIGCOV. I also did a look in the own-language name, and got less than I'd thought. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Hooda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Claims to be an actor but has no significant roles in major films and little third-party sources. No mentions outside of Wikipedia. Hiàn (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor roles in TV shows, lacks evidence of notability, therefore fails WP:NACTOR which requires significant roles in multiple productions. He may very well achieve more in the future, and article for him can then recreated, but for now, he is not notable enough to qualify for an article. Hzh (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that sufficient sourcing, between articles found by his title and name, exists to demonstrate notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hangman Hughes[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Has several stories listed on Canoe.com [37], and there's this piece from The Guardian. And this piece from CBC and this.★Trekker (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in reliable sources provided by Trekker. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Treker sources pushed it past the GNG bar.LM2000 (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG per sources provided. Nikki♥311 19:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bartok (card game)[edit]

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

Non-notable card game which fails WP:NPRODUCT. » Shadowowl | talk 14:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest redirect and very partial merger to Mao (card game), of which this is a trivial variant. This one's so old its whiskers have whiskers. An article for local folklore created in 2004. Note that the game is in fact referenced in a textbook of game design, but I can't see enough of the source to determine whether it is dependent on Wikipedia. This is played with standard playing cards; not a product. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 16:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable I think. I need to go to bed right now, but I'll list the sources I found tomorrow. SpinningSpark 00:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Introduction to Game Design, Prototyping, and Development, pages 4 to 11, extensively examines Bartok as a game design example.
- A paper from Proceedings of the 4th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment, 2007 deals with Bartok over three pages.
- The Penguin Book of Card Games has a non-trivial entry for it.
- A paper from Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games has a discussion of Bartok as a design demonstration.

Besides these, there are many pages on the web giving how-to information on Bartok, and they are mostly not Wikipedia mirrors. SpinningSpark 09:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SpinningSpark's sources. St Anselm (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Wehbi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. A couple of very short local news pieces, and a couple other sources that are not enough to meet notability concerns. Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See this reference and the records mentioned in it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the Daily Star sources in the article and the Guinness World Records source above. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona-Pitzer Sagehens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable sports team, appropriately covered at Pomona College, Pitzer College, and Claremont Colleges per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE The Banner talk 09:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most mid-sized colleges have a Wikipedia page for their athletics team, so it's appropriate that there be one for the Pomona-Pitzer team, two schools with the combined population of a mid-size university. Other similar pages such as Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas exist. - Sdkb (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sdkb should be aware that the presence of other similar articles does not *necessarily* mean this one would be justified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so long as there's an article on Cecil the Sagehen, their mascot, I'd assume the program is notable. That said, the references I find are surprisingly weak; ESPN just has the football team's schedule and no further coverage, and the school's press releases are obviously insufficient. Were it not for the WP:XY problem, I'd suggest a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple overall champions of Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, whose all other members are bluelinked. I see decent, if a bit local coverage at News search. Pretty remarkable water polo team [38]. Like Sdkb said, no reason to single this one out by deletion. There's a case for merging the mascot into the team article, but that's an issue for another round. No such user (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wellspace[edit]

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

I don't find sources that meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP for this, and the sources given in the article don't convey notability. Largoplazo (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion: the article is verifiable and original; it is not an advertisement or vanity piece; it is not a hoax; and it is notable - there is sufficient sourcing from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and Pando. Wellspace was also named "Top 1,000 Companies Worldwide for Millennial Women” by Mogul in 2018 alongside PepsiCo, Stanley Black & Decker, and CBS. According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, "Smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." Additionally, "Some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." If you believe the article is in bad shape – this can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing. As Wikipedia's guidelines state, "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." The article can be tagged for attention or tagged as a stub, for example, and improved if needed. Saywrite29 (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tip for effective communication: When you're in a dispute with someone, if you bury anything you say that's on-point in a morass of comments not directed at the issues that were raised, others in the discussion are going to have a hard time figuring out whether you've said anything that addresses whatever issues they did raise. I didn't say anything about verifiability, originality, advertising, vanity, or hoaxes. I didn't say anything about the size of the organization. I didn't say anything about limited interest in the topic. Out of your 200+ words, only about 15 are relevant to my deletion rationale as well as involving a valid consideration, and about 22 are relevant but raise an invalid consideration.

The valid consideration is coverage by The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and Pando, because if those sources have given substantial coverage to Wellspace, then that supports a case for keeping the article. So, let's look at the references to those sources supplied with the article:

WSJ: Behind a paywall so I can see only the title and the first two paragraphs. However, given that the article is about HearstLab and states that it has invested in 11 companies, I'm going to suppose that any individual attention given to those 11 companies is "in-passing" and not substantial.
NYP: Absolutely no mention of Wellspace, therefore it doesn't contribute to an evaluation of the notability of Wellspace. This reference doesn't even belong in the article because it supports nothing in the article, including the sentence that it annotates, "It has raised money from investors including Hearst." The NYP piece says nothing of the kind.

Pando: Absolutely no mention of Wellspace, therefore it doesn't contribute to an evaluation of the notability of Wellspace.

The invalid consideration is inclusion on the Mogul "Top 1,000 Companies Worldwide for Millennial Women" list: There are millions of lists of Top N items meeting arbitrary criteria compiled by arbitrary self-appointed list makers all over the place. And, for heaven's sake, this is top 1,000, which hardly singles any of the list's members out as meriting special attention. This is why WP:ORG spells out that "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', "fastest growing" or similar lists" is one of many listed "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement".

You may be misinterpreting the "last resort" principle as an indication that articles are rarely deleted. That's far from the case. The last resort is called for frequently. Among those cases where it is are those where the topic isn't notable, a condition that cannot be improved by changes or additions to the article.

Everything I've said so far aside, it's possible that applicable coverage exists that would lead to a finding of notability. It's just that I didn't find any, and the article supplies none. Largoplazo (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH; none of the sources cited are in-depth, and WP:NCORP is fairly clear that list articles constitute trivial mentions or mentions in passing. Half the article's other sources are linkedin links, while others are directly connected to Wellspace. The article also does not inherit notability from its founders, and the article does not make a credible claim to significance for the company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same rationale as SamHolt6 and Largoplazo, I looked for some more sources myself and couldn't find any which would support a claim of notability. Zortwort (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Largplazo and SamHolt6, doesn't meet WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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