Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 January	18 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Just spam for a company with no verifiable evidence of notability either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music Registry[edit]

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

Promotional. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- as A7 / G11; completely nn & promotional 'cruft. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 18 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mundo Arts[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot locate anything to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:03, 24 January 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. No consensus on a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James O'Toole (tax lawyer)[edit]

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

This cropped up after a block for NLT by an account claiming to be O'Toole's lawyer. Having looked at it, he's not notable per BLP1E in my book. This is a lawyer whose name appeared in the Paradise Papers and therefore got some coverage in reliable sources. The Guardian article is about him (bear in mind the Guardian published a ton of articles about PP), the BBC one is about a selection of "dodgy" tax advisers. Not convinced. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We'd usually delete 'tax avoidance' lawyers on site if they were American; same here. If not for the paper leak nobody would even be able to pick him out of a lineup. WP:N not met. Nate • (chatter) 01:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here is close to enough to establish notability. Even if some of his actions were found to be criminal, which they may or may not be, I have no clue, that would still not be enough for notability unless we got substantial and sustained coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom - fails WP:BLP1E. fish&karate 09:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Guy re redirecting to Paradise papers once deleted. fish&karate 12:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though a redirect to paradise papers might be appropriate since the name is a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, this is one event, the individual's role in the event was minimal, there is not likely to be ongoing coverage mentioning him.Jacona (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point of a redirect to paradise papers because 'James O'Toole (tax lawyer)' is a lot to type. Entering 'James O'Toole' brings the reader to a DAB page, and there it may be worth writing something like 'James O'Toole, who was named in the paradise papers affair.' Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the notability guidelines. It's not sufficient to simply be named in the Paradise Papers scandal.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 17:52, 21 January 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 Peano curve. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murray polygon[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Google Scholar gives only 7 results for "murray polygon", 3 of which are by the original creator. I've been unable to find any mention of this in any pop. lit. as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peano curve (should yield a paragraph or so). The article even uses the illustration from Peano curve and boldy replaces "iteration of Peano curve construction" with "Murray polygon" - that nicely demonstrates the relationship, and the lack of a need for a separate article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both notable and significant. Andrew D. (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...thank you for that immensely well-reasoned drive-by, I guess... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peano curve per the above. Scattered book and other scholarly references (e.g., [1][2][3]) are enough to support a description of the idea, but not really adequate for an article in its own right. And, often, setting a topic within the context of a more broad idea is pedagogically the better option anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: would be okay with the merge as suggested above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peano curve per above.Not enough discussed to warrant standalone article.Winged Blades^Godric 12:19, 21 January 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 Burning Spear. The nominator has indicated that they would be content with a redirect also. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Music[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Burning Spear, where it is already covered. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy with that. Rathfelder (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per Michig. Information already covered on that page. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 24 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alena (graphic novel)[edit]

I feel like it is WP:TOOSOON, seems somewhat notable to me. Has been a stub for over two months with little to no activity. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has substantial coverage in reliable sources, won a major award, and was made into a notable movie. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for winning an award. There's no WP:DEADLINE to expand it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not note the gravity of the award given to the publication, but the page could perhaps do with better sourcing in general. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:16, 19 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Vyahirev[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. I can find no evidence he actually played in the KHL as the article claims. Joeykai (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Given Dolovis' long history of shenanigans, for which he was community banned from new article creation, and that I can't find any record of any such player at ANY level of European hockey, I'm comfortable with a G3 speedy as a hoax article. Ravenswing 22:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely what has happened is he used a different transliteration of the name. He has done that a few times and I have had to redirect articles because they got created twice. -DJSasso (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see that 18abruce found him. Dolovis has done this a few times too. Call the MHL the KHL when it is in fact not. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually at the time of article creation he likely had the name right, see here. Makes identifying the earlier Ukrainian players a real nuisance, while the russians have a few more clues. Does not change that this article should be deleted.18abruce (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burn it right away. Flibirigit (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; The player profile is here. Definitely a real player but he never made it out of Torpedo's development system.18abruce (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to have played in KHL and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG or NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 19 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Maby[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY (did not see any women's teams listed there on a first glance. Hmmm.) Rogermx (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed you don't; with the exception of the Olympics (covered under a different standard), women's hockey has never generated the press coverage necessary to grant presumptive notability to every player competing ... or indeed, more's the pity, much coverage at all. Ravenswing 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –Article about completely non notable person. Fails specific SNG for lack of any verifiable achievement and fails GNG for lack of any sufficient coverage in reliable sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Completely non-notable person? She represents her country at a sport! I'm not voting keep though, after looking at NHOCKEY I was surprised that I couldn't find any critiera she clearly met. I've added some information and sources, but it's not enough. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no provision for half-notable people in Wikipedia. If there's show it to me. It is binary: Either notable or not notable, period. What ever come in between is pedantic verbiage. And less I forget, this is not the comment that requires your split-second response, it is not even a question, nobody sought for response. It is the Unanswered questions that you decided to sweep under the carpet, that should have response. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; To address NHOCKEY, she played 10 minutes in the third tier of the World Championships in 2011. Clearly not a pass, and the aticle attempts to mislead the reader into believing she played in other world tournaments when she did not in fact make the team for any other year. The sources listed do not pass GNG, and do not confirm the content of the article (plays for the national team, played in China).18abruce (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless additional references can be found to support WP:GNG. WP:NHOCKEY appears to be pretty irrelevant for top women's hockey players. Hmlarson (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and subsequently also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Flibirigit (talk) 01:26, 23 January 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 redirected to International Space Station. No need for an AFD here. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google International Space Station[edit]

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

Appears to have made headlines in July 2017, and otherwise does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE at all. Home Lander (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to appropriate target. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It being mentioned in headlines is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. And in this case, anyway, there happens to be an already existing appropriate article (Google Street View), and it already has content about this. The article not expanding on it, it also probably falls under CSD criteria A10. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 18 January 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. (the 2022 one softly). T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Asian Para Games[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Mattg82 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because WP:CRYSTAL:

Delete we can always undelete in 2026. I can see writing an article a year ahead of such a big event, but not this far ahead. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2026 is way too ahead, per nom, and per WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - too far ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 01:57, 25 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvell Technology Group chipsets[edit]

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

Overly specific listcruft, no sourcing found. important only to gearheads if at all Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The individual chipsets themselves are not notable so nothing more than directory of expertcruft. Mattg82 (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments @Mattg82: and @Ajf773:, how on earth can you call this Fancraft? That makes no sense what so ever! I can't see how you can even apply that rational to delete this article, Not a Catalogue I can understand, however I see 36 references to this list, I for one can't see many people needing this resource and can't see how it adds anything to wikipedia, if someone is looking for this information I am sure they will seek a primary source and this wikipedia page isn't that. But you two really need to work on your arguments for deleting a page. Govvy (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I called it expertcruft, I only pointed to fancruft for something related to link to. My idea of what cruft is, is probably different to yours. But however you want to define the contents of this page, there is a lot of excessive detail here, including a lot of WP:HOWTO make it work on Linux, making it hard to read. Mattg82 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: excessive listcruft & WP:NOTMANUAL. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 21 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Gideon[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 21:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her roles do not rise to the level of significance. For example, in the article on the film Operation Petticoat, we have a listing of 22 cast members. I am less than convinced that all 22 listed had significant roles. However Gideon does not even merit inclusion in that list of 22.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficiently notable actress. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 24 January 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. WP:SNOW -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detrended correspondence analysis[edit]

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

Incoherent mess of buzzwords, no sourcing found. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the nom please clarify what is meant by "no sourcing found"? There are several items in the References section. –dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep GScholar's very first hits on the phrase are a series of paper discussing the merits of the technique. I must confess I find the explanation opaque, however. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The paper that introduced the technique has over 4,000 GS citations. That's a clear sign of notability for any academic contribution. And GS finds over a thousand publications containing the exact phrase "detrended correspondence analysis" just since the beginning of 2017 [4]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term has been in use, and appearing in the relevant literature, for forty years. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing, clearly important. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It's patently obvious that this is a notable subject in ecology. It's hard to write articles about statistical techniques that are totally accessible to a lay audience, but the fact that you don't understand an article isn't a good reason to delete it. – Joe (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Easily notable. A quick WP:BEFORE would have prevented this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The heck. When did "I don't understand this topic" become a reason to nominate for deletion? Widely used method, good if not great sourcing (in direct contrast to the OP's statement). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:29, 18 January 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecta Mathematica[edit]

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

Non-notable "journal" which (according to our article) only ever published two issues, and no longer exists. My initial feeling was, This looks interesting, followed by, Hmmm, The Economist and Ars Technica as sources; looks pretty solid.

But, looking at the cited articles closer, they were published on Jul 20th and 29th, 2009, which coincides with the first issue. My own searching found an item in MAA, also dated Jul 29th, 2009. I can't find any other WP:RS, and even the blog posts and such I've found, are mostly clustered around that date. I assume, then, that they're all in response to some press release, and thus not really independent coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the better sources people have found, I withdraw my nomination. Who am I to argue with Science and Nature? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - This reminds me a little of Null result#Scientific journals for null results. I agree that the article is currently a bit promotional (failing NPOV). If there were more coverage of the article, this could be dealt with. But with such limited coverage, it is difficult to write a NPOV article sourced by RS. Also, while I don't think there is a SNG for journals, I don't think that this passes Wikipedia:TEXTBOOKS, or any similar SNGs and the GNG case is fairly weak as RoySmith points out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my vote as the nom wishes to withdraw and I have no objection.Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a fine joke that there should be an attempt to reject this article. But it is not well founded as it is easy to find further coverage in works such as Ethics and Science; Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society; Readersourcing—a manifesto; Micro‐credits in scientific publishing; &c. Naturally, as the project didn't last long, the coverage is limited but notability does not expire and so we're good. See also Deletionpedia. Andrew D. (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most mentions I can find are just that, brief mentions (e.g., [5], [6] [7] [8] [9]). The summer 2009 coverage was likely prompted by a press release, but not all of it was based on one, judging by the Ars Technica piece [10], which has extra commentary, and to a lesser degree the Economist one [11]. Nature took the trouble of interviewing them, which at least indicates that Nature thought they were worth the trouble [12]. Science also took the time to ask them a few questions, it appears [13]. For me, all this adds up to a "merits a mention"; if someone can think of a good target for a merge and redirect, I'd be amenable to that. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cut some language that sounded rather promotional to me and added a couple references. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's also book coverage from 2012 and 2016, demonstrating ongoing interest in this topic [14] [15], although both of these are not very in-depth. I can see how one might think that this is a flash-in-the-pan joke not worthy of coverage, but our opinions on whether something should be notable are not very relevant to whether it actually is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 17 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ancliff[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion due to blatant self-promotion and would-be political posturing.

Article was created by the subject, Sam Ancliff, as who is non-notable (see WP:COI, WP:SOAP), initially posting as ActivateUK, then as Sam Ancliff (politician) and now Im Cheating.

Fails WP:AUTO, WP:GNG as the (poor) references cited are little more than passing mentions (one being semi-crowd-sourced by university media students), others relating to an organisation Sam Ancliff is involved in Activate (organisation), (see WP:MASK). Sam Ancliff is advertising at LinkedIn for paid media consultancy work at £25,000 p.a. requirement.

The prod was challenged by a suspicious new username/SPA established within the hour of template removal. Likely CU needed (now? or in future, this is for posterity), together with the following IP.
*Im Cheating worklist SPA indicated
*82.24.215.175 worklist SPA indicated
*UKPoliticalEdits worklist SPA indicated.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is an unremarkable politician and campaign director. Two of the references used are YouTube videos. Per nom, it appears to be self-promotion. Sorely fails WP:GNG and does not satisfy WP:Politics. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with WP:SALT. Being campaigns director for an advocacy organization is not a notability pass on Wikipedia, and neither is being an unsuccessful candidate for county council — but the sources here are simply not cutting it for getting him over WP:GNG. YouTube videos don't assist notability, WP:ROUTINE coverage of all the candidates in a county council election doesn't assist their notability, directories of his own writing on the websites of publications he's written for don't assist his notability — and after we discount all of those, the only two sources left are ones that aren't about Ancliff, but merely include him giving quote in an article about some other subject. That is not how you demonstrate a person as notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should have additionally shown this permalink with initial CoI declaration mentioning Sam Ancliff (Politician) that was quickly blanked, and the upload details for the portrait File:SamAncliffActivate.jpg would suggest that Sam Ancliff IRL is User:Im Cheating.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Activate UK. WP:PRESERVE FloridaArmy (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable references. Clear self promotion, little discussion needed imo. -Octopithia (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2018 (GMT)
I will pass no comment other than stating I have no direct affiliation to Sam Ancliff, Activate or any association of either. I have an interest in politics in my local community as both the individual and the group was born from my home town. - Im Cheating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Im Cheating (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "Campaign director" is not a level of advancement to presume notability, and there's nothing better. Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:GNG. Merging BLP content to the org would be undue, so delete is the best option here. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 24 January 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 and redirect to ZeniMax Media. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mud Duck Productions[edit]

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

Completely unsourced for over 2 years. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are all reliable sources I could quickly find that mention the topic in-text: [16][17][18][19]. While the first offers minimal information directly about the company/label, the article overall easily fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Lordtobi (✉) 18:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to ZeniMax Media as a bargain-bin seller of low-notice games. Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect – I actually first created this page as a redirect to ZeniMax, it's not really notable on its own. Ausir (talk) 01:50, 18 January 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. I will note that while this page has been speedy deleted as the creation of a sockpuppet, the overwhelming majority of the discussion is in support of deletion, so regardless of who creates the article in the future, it will still be eligibly for G4 deletion (if the issues here have not been addressed). Primefac (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Levenson[edit]

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

Candidate only - no evidence of notability. PamD 16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete A borderline speedy though the text is clearly different from the previous round, but it still comes off as an attempt to keep the candidate to the fore. The only possible sign of real notability is the whistleblower thing, which smells of WP:BLP1E except that we don't appear to have an article. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll grant that this doesn't qualify for speedy, as the notability claim here is completely different than it was the first time, but it's still not one that makes the article keepable. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just have his name on the ballot, to pass WP:NPOL. But this doesn't make any claim of preexisting notability that would have gotten him an article for any other reason either. So no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here entitles him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for campaign websites. Pburka (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments with a banned-paid-sock.Winged Blades^Godric 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~I thought everything on Wikipedia was free... IvoryDinn (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Haven't you noticed the annual ads featuring Jimbo's mug, asking for cash? The servers are not free; see WP:NOTWEBHOST. Pburka (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I didn't mean "without cost to someone somewhere", I meant "without charge to the general public to access and create and add to", as in "...the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"... but I think we are talking past each other. IvoryDinn (talk)

We still have inclusion and notability and sourcing standards to determine what contributions are or aren't appropriate. So it's not "free" in the sense of "any possible topic at all is always fair game", which is what Pburka was talking about. We're "free" in the sense of not charging a fee to read or contribute, yes, but we're not "free" in the sense of "there are no rules about what people can or cannot do on here". Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~That wasn't what I was saying either— I like rules. I wish they applied more often. IvoryDinn (talk)~~

Keep I realize that most of the requirements at wp:NPOL say that in the case of a political candidate,the subject has to actually win or hold office, or be his or her party's nomination, to qualify as wiki-notable as a politician, but paragraph 3 there says that a political person can also qualify as notable under other criteria such as being the subject of discussion in reliable independent secondary sources— like, for example, the Boston Globe and National Public Radio. How many people are interviewed by the Globe and NPR but still don't qualify as wiki-notable?? I am not arguing that he meets wp:NPOL and never did; I am arguing that he meets the general notability guidelines, and shouldn't that be enough? Isn't that enough for virtually any other Wikipedia article? He has multiple news services reporting his movements and he is showing up in the media almost daily now. That makes him seem pretty darned notable to me! How can it not to others, unless you decide to apply a set of criteria that will de facto exclude him as a politician? And if a person meets the GNG but fails the subject specific requirements, doesn't that mean they usually get kept for meeting the HIGHER inclusion standard?

I am finding it confusing as a new editor to see my work getting lined up for deletion only because on one wants to admit that the reasons are the wrong reasons! Am getting the sense that I may not choose to stay around here very long. Levenson's wife died of ovarian cancer; so did mine. That was why I wanted to write about him. And my God, he certainly looks plenty notable AS A PERSON to me! IvoryDinn (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Strike sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates for election generally do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL just for being a candidate. Our precedents (which can change [and are expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES ]) state that the campaign is notable per WP:BLP1E, but that the candidates are not notable by virtue of their campaign. There already exists United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018, where some of the information about the subject could be added. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments with a banned-paid-sock.Winged Blades^Godric 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not arguing his inherent notability. Not at all. Paragraph 3 of NPOL states: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The subject here, a candidate for political office, has just that kind of coverage: significant, reliable, and independent. His being a candidate for political office should not be used to DIS-qualify him, which looks to be how this is being done here. The subject-specific criteria are useful for including articles which would otherwise fail to meet the primary notability criteria, but not to exclude those which already do, no? (In other words, if a person who clearly qualified as a university professor decided one day to run for office, would we then delete his/ her article for not having met the notability criteria for politicians??)IvoryDinn (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that WP:NPOL doesn't exclude subjects who pass WP:GNG. However, I believe it's generally agreed that political campaigns are news, rather than encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Specifically, campaigns usually have little enduring notability. Pburka (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*I get the sense that you are looking for reasons to exclude this article. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is not the same as "Wikipedia articles cannot be based on newspapers." There is not, so far as I know, any policy saying that newspapers cannot be the sole basis for an article (is there?). Plane crashes are news. Hurricanes are news. This news story is not a routine announcement like an obituary or a celebrity spotting, and there are tons of articles that began with only newspapers for references. So far this one has been in the papers, on tv, and on the radio for over six months, and is ongoing (meaning that it is not "breaking news", which is what the "Wikipedia is not news" thing is meant to address). At what point do we call that "enduring"? Are the sources reliable? Are they independent? Are they verifiable? Do they talk about the subject in depth? WP:NPOL says nothing about the likelihood of a campaign being notable or enduring. Where is the policy page that outlines durability so that I can review it? ("...generally agreed..." makes me a little uneasy). IvoryDinn (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plane crashes are a good example. Wikipedia doesn't include articles for most plane crashes because they're newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. They are included if they had an enduring impact, e.g. the crash investigation led to a change in regulation or design. (I said "generally agreed" because very few, if any, things on Wikipedia have universal agreement.) Pburka (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We just had an AfD about a plane crash, the standard is much lower than you suggest, for example if there is serious damage to the aircraft or airport, or if there are fatalities, it is considered encyclopedic. Jacona (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say, "generally agreed", you make it sound as though you are speaking on behalf of others who may or may not exist. This is why I asked for a policy page, which so far no one has shown me. It is very confusing to show readers a set of policy guidelines and then contradict them in practice because it is "generally agreed" that those policies don't actually apply to the thing at hand. I also recently created an article on another politician from NH, Mark MacKenzie, a man with far less news coverage, which was approved without question. The double standard there is remarkable. Maybe this campaign will result in an election, maybe not, but that isn't the point. The point is that the notability criteria appear to have been met, but that it is "generally agreed" (despite the absence of any supporting policy) that this doesn't really matter. Please justify that for me, because I still don't get it. IvoryDinn (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did link to the policy: WP:NOT Pburka (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OtherStuffExists. Mark MacKenzie is a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, a position which meets WP:NPOL. Perhaps a better policy to point you towards is WP:BLP1E, which is how we frequently judge candidates for elective office, that being, the election itself is notable (and information about each candidate can be placed there), but the candidates themselves may not necessarily be notable (see WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once wp:GNG has been met, WP:NPOL becomes irrelevant. Subject has been interviewed on national radio. Also, from WP:OUTCOMES:"When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." So far, no one has suggested that any of that isn't true here. Gruenback (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC) This user has nearly no other edits Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Strike sock TonyBallioni (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a political advertisement. NOTADVOCACY supersedes all considerations of notability . I probably would support a NPOV article article if he won the primary, but he hasn't even done that, so there is no point in rewriting. (I do think that major party candidates for a national-level office in a 2 party system are generally notable enough for articles.) DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be spam from an undisclosed paid editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please salt this TonyBallioni (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the background, I think this could have been speedied. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They'll get their wish if they win. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt. Do we have to clean up this guy's blp1e/advocacy/spam every campaign season? Cabayi (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable political candidate who fails to meet notability guidelines for politicians, biographies, or in general, really. Given the unwelcome and recurrent nature of this article, I'd advocate for a hefty dose of salt on the side. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the sources are linked to his candidacy and talk about him being a major whistleblower which gives the impression that he may be notable over and beyond his candidacy. But not a single source is from before he announced his candidacy. This suggests that his PR team is pushing his whistleblowing to help his chances. GNG most certainly hasn't been met. Domdeparis (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt. This has been one of the most tenacious attempts in recent times to get a non notable vanity page (political election campaign) into mainspace. The original paid author KDS444 has been heavily sanctioned. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Stewart Levenson (only admins can see it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:TOOSOON, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTADVOCACY, plus worries over WP:COI. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 08:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided really don't indicate either NPOL or GNG. This may change, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be salted in the meantime, especially given the COI and PAID concerns. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Salt Too much volunteer time has been wasted on this candidate. Edwardx (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon the basis that this is undisclosed paid editing. !dave 10:40, 23 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gigacity[edit]

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

Procedural nom: PROD contested without improvement. Most of the ghits seem to discuss cities with bandwidth ≥1 GBps or a fictional city in Mega Man X, not the term discussed in the article. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is suitable for a dictionary entry, which it already has one. Perhaps in the future things will change, not it is not notable today. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I find one reasonable hit back in 2001, but it's clearly a notion which didn't catch on. The vast majority of book/scholar hits are from scanning errors. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 19:00, 17 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Maaka[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. No significant coverage in independent sources. Only coverage I could find was a 2012 article on the QANTAS award and a 2014 article on her Kickstarter campaign for a vegan-fashion line, both from local newspaper Manly Daily. Much of the article also fails WP:V. Kb.au (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, fails SIGCOV. If not self-promotional then clearly a COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. And as DerbyCounty says either self promotion or COi in the writing of it. NZFC^(talk) 18:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems to be no news coverage, and search hits are almost all social media. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is news coverage, a lot of it in print media. Also note the name change. Will add to references. ^[1]JF1982 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.candymaaka.com/press.html

— JF1982 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— I'm a brand new user who has only written, well attempted to write, one article. Of course there are few or no other edits outside of this topic. But for your information, I have also signed up to help tackle the backlog of orphaned articles (now that I know what they are). We have to start somewhere, right? Doesn't mean we're a single-purpose account. JF1982 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Adding to the above, sources are local and mostly web and article is an ORPHAN. Judging from the edit record, this is likely a vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ In response to the local press comments, the subject lives in Australia and press articles are from Australia, New Zealand, America, Europe and UK. Mostly print. JF1982 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Not sure if this is the right place to say this, but I wrote this article and I am not the subject. I have 3 others to write, and I am still trying to find my way through this. This is the first time that I have heard of the term 'orphan article,' so I will try and figure out how to fix that. If anyone is willing to point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it a lot. I did read Wikis regulations and purposely didn't add business names/fashion label names and the subjects current book title to article, because I didn't want my first article to seem 'promotional.' But it appears to have come across as promotional, COI and now vanity. Please understand how frustrating it is to have everyone point out the errors in your article without offering how to better it. I genuinely welcome any tips. Thanks.JF1982 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please stop !voting more than once. Agricola44 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As you can see Agricola44, I am new here. I have been 'copy and pasting' how to reply here, and trial and error. I am only now aware of the 'comment' heading, and now understand that I can use 'comment' if I would like to say something (other than vote). I thought I had to keep saying 'keep' because that is my vote, and no, I didn't use 'keep' to try and tally more votes - hence I signed every post. It wasn't deliberate. I also thought that this wasn't a vote, but a discussion? So number of votes shouldn't count anyway. Please be patient with newbies here. This stuff is tricky! Everyone automatically assumes the worst. JF1982 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it's not a vote. It's a !VOTE. Kb.au (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for user to continue working on it. While this may not be clear cut notable, there are several claims that can show notability. And based on exchange here, I wish everyone should AGF and let this to be sent to user space instead of deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to moving it to draft or userspace if others think the notability is borderline. Kb.au (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid notability is not borderline. If one looks carefully at the sources, they're almost all webpages. The Qantas airlines award is not notable. Moreover, the source for that doesn't even list Maaka, but is rather about the award itself. Most of the article is OR (is currently earning her diploma in Master Herbalism, etc). I think we must bear in mind that this is a BLP and that means sourcing is relatively stringent. Broad searching doesn't turn up anything that is even close to demonstrating notability. WorldCat shows that her book Lightwarrior is held by 0 institutions, Google searching just turns up GoFundMe/blogs/Twitter/FaceBook cruft, GNews nothing, no citations in books, and nothing in GS or HighBeam. It seems the only real RS are a few local news pieces, as the nom stated originally. Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's borderline notability of course that's why WP:GNG is guideline not hard-coded policy. What you think is not notable someone may think otherwise and your view cannot summarily trumps theirs. Your search is limited by several factors both technically and physically. I am not saying it is outright notable but I can't say it's not either. There is a reason CSD A7 was designed very strict. On use of local sources, that's your opinion; there's no policy or guideline that prohibited them. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that you are asserting this is a borderline case, but you don't seem to make a case beyond EXISTENCE of a few local sources. We generally don't accept notability at this level, otherwise a large fraction of humanity would be notable for WP purposes. It is true that my search is limited "both technically and physically", but no more than those done for numerous other AfDs here every single day. I don't think your strawman of the subjectivity of notability is helpful here. The fact of the matter is that most of the article is OR, most of the "sources" are unacceptable for a BLP, and there's very little else convincing that turns up in a broad search of the standard, conventional information databases that we use here at WP every day for this purpose (GS, WorldCat, etc. etc.). So, if you feel that this level of "evidence" is enough to say that notability is borderline, then I think you and I just have to disagree. Agricola44 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does "most of the article is OR" mean? I have mentioned that I am doing this through trial and error. I have looked at other pages and used that as a guideline for what info to add. I added what the subject has studied and is studying, because I also added that she is a conservationist and humanitarian - it backs up those claims. I could add the subject's sustainable fashion/social enterprise as a page, but then I'd get blasted for promotional use. It seems that you want more info, but then I'm doomed because I'm not allowed to add it. Or is there a way to add that page, without being promotional? Also note that I did not add the subject's book to the article (again with the promotional stuff), Lightwarrior, even though it was sold by several of the largest bookstores in the world (I was able to see which stores sold the book through a google search). Regarding 'google searching and only finding GoFundMe/blogs/Twitter/FaceBook cruft' - note that the GoFundMe fundraiser was a recent event (Dec 2017), and social media is also recent/current; of course they're going to show on google regardless. But, the subject won the Qantas Award in 2012, and websites/media sites don't always hold articles for that long - it is 2018 after all (hence why print media is important and the clippings are available online). I have shared a print press clipping regarding the Qantas award win; it is notable. "It seems the only real RS are a few local news pieces" - The Dominion Post is NZ's largest newspaper, how is that local news when subject lives in Australia? Again, I have shared the clipping. The press articles are mostly print (local and international) and I have shown you where to view some of the clippings. But you keep saying the sources are only local. You will not find these clippings/print press articles in a google search or on worldcat - perhaps deeper research is needed because worldcat etc obviously can't pick up everything. "If one looks carefully at the sources, they're almost all webpages" - that happens when press is mostly print; how else am I supposed to cite relevant media articles, if not from the web? I add webpages and it's not good enough; yet in your opinion, the subject's notability is based on a web search. You can't have it both ways. JF1982 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the most notable thing that the subject has done (asides from winning the Qantas award) was rebrand the successful fashion label that she won the award for in the first place. Subject rebranded to sustainable fashion and became a social enterprise instead. If you researched it, you would find that info easily. Although 'notable' to me and not 'notable' to you - I at least agree with 'borderline notability,' and that's why I wanted to write this article in the first place. JF1982 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 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. FGS. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girther movement[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. The daily Trump flash in the pan event doesn't need an article in an encyclopedia. Recreate if and when it has shown to have enduring impact and notability in a few months time. Fram (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a story that goes to the heart of the issue of the honesty or otherwise of the most powerful man on the planet. How can it not be news? It has also gone international, achieving coverage in multiple reputable media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.97.50 (talk)
Delete I agree wholeheartedly with Fram. There are hundreds of articles about President of Americas Donald Trump already, the matter of whether he is 6’2’’or 6’3’’ is almost not relevant, I believe he was measured and found to be 6’3’’ so the matter is resolved and I do not think this tiny detail needs to be documented in an entire article just for it. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom + Just some random speculation that seems to have some flimsy logic + a one inch change in height is not exactly huge and could be from better measurement/time of day. Wapo dismisses it out-of-hand pretty much Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is just ridiculous. And obviously non-notable recentism. Let's go back to writing an encyclopedia. (Must admit this source was hilarious, though.) — JFG ^talk 16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As ludicrous as it sounds, this article is backed up by a number of reliable sources and easily passes the General Notability Guidelines. I think it is a stupid article about a stupid thing, and it makes me want to bash my head on the desk, but it satisfies notability criteria and this is the world we now live in. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey, my friend, if you seriously think this is notable, please allow yourself to WP:IAR sometimes.

— JFG ^talk 16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are simply too many reliable sources and too much widespread coverage for this to be an IAR situation, as much as it pains me to admit. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This indeed has received a lot more coverage than I realized - I sympathize with your !vote - quite a lot of it seems like 109 newspapers reporting though, mostly on the same twitter posts.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of coverage, yes - but literally all of it is from within the past 24 hours. There's nothing to suggest this will become a subject of enduring value or notability. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I commented already but after reading the last comment I will add that I think the deletion reason is good but it could be expanded to point out that the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DICT policies say that there should not be articles about every tiny detail and definition which I say is relevant to this article. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That WP:NOT#DICT defense doesn't make a lot of sense. The article is not about the word "girther", but rather it is about a growing movement of people who dispute the report given by the White House physician. Moreover, the fact that it easily passes WP:GNG means WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't really apply. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Donald Trump#Girther movement, I proposed a broader health of Trump page which could somehow incorporate this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seriously? This is mostly based on two tweets from today. WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS certainly apply here. While I would support including content regarding Trump's health and speculations on it in his article (or the Presidency subarticle), the "Girther" movement does not warrant its own article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete God, no. Somebody invents a cute pun about a claimed discrepancy in one of his physical measurements, and we immediately create an article about it? At most - at MOST, and I don't think it is there yet - it could be mentioned in another article. No way it qualifies for a standalone article and I very much doubt it ever will. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but we have to be fair when deciding what is and isn't a notable neologism. This is a word said by one journalist, it's not "a thing" at this time. If a genuine article can be made regarding Trump and the bogus "100% fit" stuff emanating from the White House regarding his health, then that's fine. But this isn't that. TheValeyard (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If such an article were someday to be created, it would be called "Health of Donald Trump" and would include the entire picture. And that will only happen only if his health becomes an ongoing story of importance to his biography and his presidency. It will not be about a silly 1 inch discrepancy in his reported height. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh for heaven's sake DELETE Every controversy over every stupid thing that comes out of the Trump White House doesn't need an article one day after the matter is reported, if for no other reason that he says something almost every day to set someone off. Realistically something else is going to come along in another day or even before the sun sets in DC to push this off the queue of outrages. Write an article about it if there's still substantial furor in the MSM in a couple of months. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a lame topic but relevant to American pop culture, this article has reliable sources and needs more time to evolve or redirected as previously stated. -- Susangrigg1 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone suggest a redirect? To what topic? (Btw I note that you are the author of this article. No offense to you is intended if it gets deleted.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Melanie, none would be taken. (Emir talk) had mentioned a broader article be created on Trump's health. It may also pertain to an article on Anti-fat bias as a public figure and how he both gives and receives this bias of weight.Susangrigg1 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and common sense. Chris Hayes coined a term on his show and we make a page about it? Really? Do the people saying "keep" not see how inappropriate this is? Even if there are enough sources to make a GNG argument, which I don't think there are, WP:IAR and keep this trash to the left wing blogs. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has failed to achieve significant coverage in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 19:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure neologism. --Tataral (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS; not everything with a hashtag needs an article here. We've got near-below zero temps in New Orleans and Houston, surely that's more important to write an article about than this. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the extreme example I have seen of not news. Let's not even get into how ludicrous the whole things is. People quibbling about 1 inch is just ludicrous. I don't even want to try to count how many times a nurse has asked me my height and just written it down without checking it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the valid reasons above. --DHeyward (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silly news story.LM2000 (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i believe this is a developing story to which more sources are starting to appear. For example its now been covered several times in UK newspapers. Whilst i agree its a stupid conspiracy, so was the "Birther movement" and thats now a fully fledged page in its own right with some in depth analysis. Personally if this page is deleted, i believe that page should be deleted for the same reasons - seeing the Birther movement page is unlikely to be deleted, that thus means this page should stay Garfie489 (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The "birther" nonsense would have had an immediate impact on the legitimacy of Obama's presidency if it had been in any way true. Whether Trump is 6'3" or 6'1" or whatever has no legal, political, ... impact, it just makes for another "funny" story. Fram (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Garfie489 about its similarities to the Birther movement. I also think this dialog has stirred a lot of emotion which may speak for its importance as an article. Again I think time will tell how far it goes, likely into the upcoming womens march.Susangrigg1 (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might be the epitome of WP:NOTNEWS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will this trend of making every single new phrase, tweet, article, parody, or word remotely related to Trump never end? This kind of thing is exactly what NOTNEWS is supposed to prevent. --Joshualouie711^talk 15:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for goodness sake. This could easily be merged into the main Donald Trump article with two sentences after the doctor's conclusion. This does not need its own article. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article on Donald Trump mental and physical health theories, or the like. This is only the latest in a string of public contemplations on Trump's mental and physical health dating back at least to his involvement in the 2012 presidential campaign. bd2412 T 18:37, 18 January 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump chessmaster meme[edit]

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

Despite a bunch of good citations, this concept does not seem to have significant notability as a meme. Barring outright deletion, I would suggest moving the text to a section of Donald Trump on social media. — JFG ^talk 14:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree that it should be merged with Donald Trump on social media. Supervegan (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge This is ephemeral pop culture detritus which obviously should not exist. But I think it's still probably WP:UNDUE anywhere else except maybe as a long collection of sources at the end of the one quotation. — Smuckola (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kudos on the citations anyway, LOL. I'm not going to vote on this. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the perfect example of what AfD is for. This has no coverage, it's just a one-off, one of thousands that are not individually notable.Jacona (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable enough topic in my view to warrant a stand-alone article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no enduring notability.LM2000 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban zone (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Dab failing WP:TWODABS: a primary topic with 1 valid entry no 2. Urban Zone is to be deleted (NN + promo), 3. Urban zones of New Zealand is a WP:PTM covered by the primary topic. So, even if either 2. or 3. are retained, then it still fails TWODABS, so may as well SNOW delete now Widefox; talk 14:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, leaving Urban zone as a redirect to Urban area, with a redirect hatnote to Urban Zone if it survives AfD, instead of to the dab page. I can see no evidence that the term is used in New Zealand in an official way, so no need to link to that article. PamD 10:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per analysis of PamD, which I completely agree with. bd2412 T 18:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Philippine television series show is likely to be deleted due to WP:GNG and WP:COIN issues, so there is no good reason for leaving the disambiguate redirection. SA 13 Bro (talk) 18:15, 20 January 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 as G12 - copyright violation. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Department of European-Central Asian Affairs (People's Republic of China)[edit]

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

unencyclopedical article that lacks the basics for an article on an official departement, it does not even state which ministry it belongs to is, where it is based is totally unsourced. IMHO a clear candidate for PROD but as it was Unprodded without being improved it must go through AFD. Tagged since june 2017 without improvement. Domdeparis (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Speedy delete as a clear copyright violation. I've tagged the article appropriately. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 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 as G12 - copyright violation. Primefac (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Department of West Asian and North African Affairs (People's Republic of China)[edit]

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

unencyclopedical article that lacks the basics for an article on an official departement, it does not even state which ministry it belongs to is, where it is based is totally unsourced. IMHO a clear candidate for PROD but as it was Unprodded without being improved it must go through AFD. Tagged since june 2017 without improvement. Domdeparis (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Seems real to me. WP:BEFORE would have been useful here.--TM 14:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

note. I did a find sources for it; the first thing I found was the official site, and it is a word for word copy of that site’s introductory paragraph, so I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright vio. I am not sure if the AfD trumps that, in which case it might be better blanked.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, AfD does not trump speedy deletion for copyright violation. Well spotted! 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aehsaas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No independent notability given, and the award appears to be one for participation. A Quick google reveals no third party sources discussing this. Killer Moff (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could be redirected to director's article but almost everything would have to be cut out. Seems reasonable to maintain coverage of a notable directors early works and who took part. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable as per WP:NFILM Hagennos (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable short film which does not meet WP:NFILM. Did not receive a theatrical release; no reviews. Insufficiently notable for a redirect, so delete is the best option here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 21 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Versatile (music)[edit]

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

This seems rather pointless - like a dictionary definition inflated with some commonplaces. References are all illustrative rather than descriptive. I suggest this can be deleted w/o a redirect. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability, unencyclopedic, essay, etc. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an essay about a word, and not an encyclopaedia worthy subject. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like WP:OR, an attempt to create a subject rather than record information about a notable subject. Jacona (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree this is WP:OR. Tacyarg (talk) 02:06, 23 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harkamaya College of Education[edit]

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

Article on a for-profit college, sourced entirely to the company's self-published report. I could find no significant, independent coverage and certainly nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Deprodded because "deletion of articles on accredited degree-level colleges is far from uncontroversial", but accreditation does not equal notability. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have missed something, but I can find no evidence that this is a "for-profit" college. And, as far as I am aware, no officially accredited degree-awarding college has ever been deleted at AfD. Is there something about this one that means that it should be the first? Or should we apply the same standards to colleges in India that we do to colleges in the anglophone West? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is the same whatever the organisation and wherever it's located: significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I have made a good faith attempt to find it for this college, and found none. This isn't a major centre of higher education, it's a small, privately-owned teacher training college. I don't know about you but I have absolutely no idea what it takes to get a "B grade NAAC accreditation" so I don't think it's a good idea to presume that it's an indicator of notability. – Joe (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "In 2006, the college became the first institution in the state of Sikkim to offer the Master of Education degree". At worst it would be merged to the parent university. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but it only says it's "affiliated to", not part, of Sikkim University (which itself is a very minor regional university). The Sikkim website only gives it the barest mention, as one of fourteen (!) affiliated colleges [20]. – Joe (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a officially accredited degree-awarding college affiliated to the Sikkim University which is a Central University and the degree is recognised by the University Grants Commission (India) .I have added some references to the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: You added a primary government document that just includes Harkamaya in a table; a book that mentions it once in a directory of colleges (and doesn't verify the statement it is attached to); and, most bafflingly, to support the statement "the college was founded in 2003, and was initially affiliated to North Bengal University in West Bengal," you added a reference that mentions neither Harkamaya nor North Bengal University, and was published ten years before the college even opened! What on earth were you trying to achieve with that? – Joe (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment :It was founded in 2003 and it was originally affiliated to the North Bengal University in West Bengal after the Sikkim University was founded in 2006 it got affiliated to the Sikkim University .Sorry I wrongly added a wrong link which I wished to add to another page thanks for pointing it out.It is recognised degree issuing college as per Sikkim Government site mentions it and this book states It was founded in 2003 and is affiliated to Sikkim University and the NAAC as per this gives it a rating of B+ it is not a run a mill private college. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those facts are disputed. But being affiliated to a notable university or accredited by a notable body does not make this college notable. Where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources? – Joe (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as a for-profit institution it needs to meet WP:NCORP. No sources have been presented to this effect by the Keep voters, and my searches do not bring up anything suitable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I see no reason to suppose that this is a for-profit institution. A large percentage of the world's universities and colleges teaching to degree level are private but not for-profit, for example all of the Ivy League universities, and I see no evidence that this is any different. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly and completely irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without reputable third-party material sources other than the institutions' own marketing materials, and without some self-inherent claim to notability, simply existing and being a college does not meet notability requirements, which a lot of people seem to utterly fail to understand here. Or do I seriously need to quote WP:ORGIN, WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG, all of which are pretty clear cut? Simply existing does not confer notability. besieged^talk 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The National Assessment and Accreditation Council is reputable and is not part of this institution's marketing department. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have long considered that all accredited degree-awarding institutions are notable. That is a longstanding consensus. Clearly that's what you utterly fail to understand. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sikkim University, this article is about a college or appendage that is a part of a notable university. Since the Harkamaya College of Education does not have multiple, reliable sources a stand alone article does not meet WP:N and may be included as a short summary under the notable institution. This institution does appear to exist but it looks like a distance learning facility according to: (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Harkamaya+College,+6th+mile,,+Tadong,+Gangtok,+Sikkim+737102,+India/@27.3105755,88.5975893,3a,66.8y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCAoSLEFGMVFpcE5wZmV3NWVKUzN3RXpsaTdTMkpRWDJuTUlMYVJDNjlLUWZQcFRr!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x39e6a500ffffffff:0x23a61f2ea1d6c738) which suggests that it is Sikkim Manipal University Distance Education. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, we appear to have confusion about the status of affiliated colleges in India. These are not "part" of the university to which they are affiliated. They are entirely independent institutions whose degrees are simply accredited by those universities. A merger would thus be entirely inappropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there is a specific reliable source, besides the College's own page, that indicates factual evidence to support your statement that Sikkim Manipal University Distance Education actually is not Harkamaya College of Education? Because at this point there is significant ambiguity about the existence of the institution and it's organization. Don't throw around simplistic statements. In any case, a merger of affiliated colleges has been done where appropriate. See College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additionally, according to the Harkayama website Sikkim University awards the degrees at Harkamaya College of Education. It could be easily argued that there is no difference between this type of organization and traditional Collegiate university or between this and remote distance learning sites at American institutions with satellite locations. 14:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
    - It can actually be easily argued that there is a very definite difference. It has in fact been so argued successfully numerous times before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would add that this college pre-dates Sikkim University, so cannot be considered part of it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - 86.17.222.157, absolutely it can. If an institution has a relationship to another then it can be considered a part of another institution founded later. Mergers and separations happen. So do other formal and informal partnership agreements between institutions. See List of university and college mergers in the United States for a litany of examples. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are simply using guesswork here rather than recognise that your interpretation of "affiliated" has been explained to be wrong. For the first years of its existence this college was affiliated with one university, and then when a state university was established in Sikkim it switched affiliation. This is a demonstration that "affiliated with" does not mean "part of". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for repeating ad naseum your opinion. Affiliations can change, time in case you weren't aware, goes on. Your opinion does not discount my posts above and your are not 'correct' in defining how it should be shown anymore than I am. As I stated above the degree granting institution is Sikkim University. Even so, there is precedent that two independent affiliated universities can exist on the same page as in College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University. So your point to me is not relevant and does not have any meaningful bearing on whether to keep, or, delete the page. In any case, I believe that based on the lack of notable references we should move forward in merging all of the 'affiliated' small institutions with the page that contains the degree granting institution. This is in effect how collegiate university are currently shown and an appropriate way of explaining their relationships to the reader. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am baffled that the keep !voters would rather argue the finer points of institutional affiliation and accreditation in India than simply provide a few sources. If this organisation is actually notable, it shouldn't be this hard to prove it. – Joe (talk) 21:44, 19 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untouchable (2011 short film)[edit]

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

Non-notable student film lacking in-depth sourcing. Perhaps redirect to Kelly Marie Tran. reddogsix (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Because this is a student film more than five years old, notability on the film directly fails WP:NOTFILM. However there is other evidence of notability: significant involvement by a notable person. This is Kelly Marie Tran's first film credit of her career. Viapicante (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. reddogsix (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like all the films Brad Pitt did before Thelma & Louise that have returned to haunt the FYE/iTunes bargain bin with their beginner Photoshop and Windows Movie Maker DVD menus, this is among its ilk for sure. It's a student film that would barely be noticed at all if not for said actress in film (a great actress mind you) not being in a certain film series involving intractable fights between factions in outer space. The actress isn't even top-billed in this, so a redirect would be an unlikely target. Nate • (chatter) 02:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to her IMDb profile, she is most known for this project next to Star Wars. Also, she is a main cast member in Unotuchable according to the film's poster on IMDb.Viapicante (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone spammed the site enough she could be 'most notable' for a thanks on a random film or even something like an adult film that would violate WP:BLP. That's why we don't use IMDb as a source. Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this film is how a very prominent actress got her start and it has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources because of that. Notability established. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions and single line entries are far from adequate coverage to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not inherited, no real sourcing of the topic outside Tran, no evidence of independent notability, etc etc. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:NFILM. A "student short film drama" screams non-notable. No indications of a cult following or significant impact. Notability is not inherited from the notable performer, and there's nothing better. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 21 January 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). T. Canens (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Boys' U18 Volleyball European Championship Qualification[edit]

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

Unnecessary article about Qualifications, either delete or possible merge into 2018_Boys'_U18_Volleyball_European_Championship Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of qualification pages are separared from main competition pages. So, I want to know 1.what criteria to tell which one should have or shouldn't? 2.The qualification page of previous edition (2017) will be deleted or not if this page delete. Noncommittalp (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge SeraphWiki (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the only case where their is actually a qualification tournament to enter the main tournament. You can't possibly merge the two as the qualification looks out of place in the final tournament and doesn't show that it was actually part of the tournament. Yeah you could try and work it, but would it work, I don't think it would. Secondly, if you want to delete this, you may as well delete the 2013, 2015 and 2017 qualifying areas for those editions as they have been created and we are not talking about them. I can't think of any more for this current time but I am going to stay keep them for now. Matt294069 is coming 08:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 9 January 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 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 17 January 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 California State University, Chico. T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meriam library[edit]

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

Library of California State University, Chico. Nothing significant of the building as it fails WP:GEOFEAT. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to California State University, Chico, which will improve the latter article (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to California State University, Chico, if the time comes where it's big enough to get its own article again then so be it, but as it stands it needs to be part of the larger page. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Tacyarg (talk) 05:14, 25 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Model High School, Lahore[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG.. Saqib (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Before reading WP:GNG, one should have a read of WP:N from the very beginning. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Now if we go through the subject specific guidelines in WP:OUTCOMES, reading thorough WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the school clearly falls in the category. It reads: "Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-inherent notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). One should read all of the rules together rather than dwelling too much into one or two points that attract deletion. M A A Z T A L K 12:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES is not a policy page. --Saqib (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly mentioned in the 'box on the right' of WP:N. Clearly following Wikipedia rules per WP:N. M A A Z T A L K 13:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A similar case. Kudpung procedurally closed this AfD:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Model_High_School,_Pattoki. M A A Z T A L K 14:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus and my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing in WP:RS. Also see [21] which states no school is inherently notable. Störm (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:RS? What about the 20-page academic article cited in the article? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is case-study. Störm (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. How does that make it unreliable? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient notabilty. scope_creep (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found 3 more RS. :) :) :) Now there are a total of at-least 5-6 RS mentioned. This should be significant for notability:
i)Biographical Encyclopedia of Pakistan, pg:888
ii)The Year Book of Education 1961: CONCEPTS OF EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION.
iii)https://dailytimes.com.pk/171554/teachers-condemn-punjab-govts-draconian-policies/
iv)https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1818-3344
v)http://conduct.biselahore.com/ShowInstitutions.aspx
vi)https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153818
vii)"Calcutta Review". University of Calcutta. 21 January 2018 – via Google Books. M A A Z T A L K 21:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has adequate sources and notability. It would constitute a bias to assume the school is not notable given the schools are not inherently notable. samee ^talk 16:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sources by MAAZ above are enough to show notability for high school. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing references are not enough to show notability. School outcomes is not policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is a 20-page paper about the school in an academic journal a passing reference? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References are not enough to show notability? then what does? I've mentioned atleast 6-7 reliable sources now. RS are the best sources according to Wikipedia. M A A Z T A L K 12:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma'az: I realised you added a couple of unreliable sources. Please avoid. --Saqib (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Yes thank you for mentioning that. Those sources were mentioned before (not after the article was AFD), and they are excluded in the list of 7 RS mentioned above. The other sources are removed now. :) M A A Z T A L K 13:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longstanding precedent at AfD that secondary schools of demonstrated existence are presumed reliable. Now, who reads Urdu? Carrite (talk) 15:16, 23 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Customs Public School[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. cited sources are not RS, except this which is a clear press release. An RfC on secondary school states "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Saqib (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Before reading WP:GNG, one should have a read of WP:N from the very beginning. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Now if we go through the subject specific guidelines in WP:OUTCOMES, reading thorough WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the school clearly falls in the category. It reads: "Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-inherent notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). And also, it has more than one RS:
i) https://nation.com.pk/10-Apr-2017/bilqees-sarwar-foundation-to-grant-100-scholarships.
ii) http://fp.brecorder.com/2016/04/2016040532506/
iii) http://conduct.biselahore.com/ShowInstitutions.aspx
iv) https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=open_access_etds
v) Bhatti, Mukhtar Ahmad; Afzal, Mian Muhammad (21 January 1987). "Secondary Education in Pakistan: Perspective Planning". National Education Council – via Google Books.
vi)http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1940&context=honors_theses M A A

Z T A L K 12:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES is not a policy page. --Saqib (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is clearly mentioned in the "box on the right" of WP:N. Please read WP:N completely. M A A Z T A L K 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appears to be completely misinterpreting the WP:N. I leave the discussion here and let the closing admin decide whether to keep or delete this page. --Saqib (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, I used exact words mentioned in WP:N, criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. I don't know how I'm misinterpreting. The box includes WP:OUTCOMES and was specially made for these issues. Anyways, I agree lets leave it up to admins. M A A Z T A L K 14:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ma'az: Not all of the links in the {{Notability guide}} box are notability guidelines—the last 4 under the "See also" heading, including WP:OUTCOMES, are non-authoritative essays or information pages. The relevant subject-specific notability guideline for schools is actually WP:ORG, which states that A ... school ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Accordingly, it's my view that in this discussion we should focus more on finding reliable secondary sources and less on "WP:OUTCOMES says we usually keep so we should keep". On the other hand, with respect to secondary schools, this admittedly gets rather contentious, and there are other valid considerations that play in as well, such as WP:SYSTEMIC. For a somewhat extreme example that some editors disagreed with, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea Kent Foreign School. Regarding the section of Wikipedia:Notability (geography) that you referenced, this article is about an individual school, not a school district, so I don't think the near-inherent notability applies. Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC), last modified 03:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A case from Wiki history. Kudpung procedurally closed this AfD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Model_High_School,_Pattoki. M A A Z T A L K 14:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma'az: You giving me good chuckle. Cared to look at the reason of that AfD closure? --Saqib (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He closed the AfD because too many schools and colleges were being nominated for deletion. Anyways, lets leave it up to admins now. We've given our opinions. M A A Z T A L K 15:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is neither a policy nor a guideline, it's a summary of what most often happens at AfD. As it itself states, schools aren't inherently notable. – Uanfala (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus and my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My usual reasons for keeping secondary schools, which I first started formulating and started using in 2006. scope_creep (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found another RS. ☺ And the Prologue section mentions a great deal about the school.
Jaffery, Zafreen (2012-01-01). Making Education Accessible: A Dual Case Study of Instructional Practices, Management, and Equity in a Rural and an Urban NGO School in Pakistan (Thesis). Portland State University. M A A Z T A L K 19:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp & Scope creep. The article is well-sourced, its notability can't be ruled out based on assumption (lack of sources etc), that would be bias in my view. samee ^talk 16:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete longstanding precedent has given us a Wikipedia full of low quality articles with chances of improvement low, and chances fo vandalism high. The article lacks the type of indepth coverage that would show any other corporation to be notable, just because the corporation here specializes in teaching children does not mean we should alter the expectations on the level of coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More than 50% of Wikipedia articles are Stub articles. Does that mean, all those articles be deleted? (obviously not). Wikipedia allows for these articles to exist, because these articles have the potential to upgrade in future, considering RS are mentioned. And by the way, added another RS: Bhatti, Mukhtar Ahmad; Afzal, Mian Muhammad (21 January 1987). "Secondary Education in Pakistan: Perspective Planning". National Education Council – via Google Books. (This is 5th or 6th RS mentioned now; this should be significant for notability). And lastly on the WP:OUTCOMES thing, even if you want to exclude it from the box in the right of WP:N, then in addition to reliable sources, Necrothesp and my initial argument revolved around the geography and historicity of the building, which is also mentioned in WP:NGEO. WP:NGEO is included in WP:N and explains: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. M A A Z T A L K 13:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really know which sources are WP:RS. For your information, Google map, Bilqees Sarwar are not WP:RS. This article lack significant independent coverage so I'll lean delete. Don't bring single-mention sources because they have nothing to do with notability. Three arguments above are usual reasoning which they do on every AfD, not policy-based. Störm (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even paying attention to the discussion? No where in discussion did I mention google maps to be RS. Read my first comment, in fact I'll post the sources again:
i) https://nation.com.pk/10-Apr-2017/bilqees-sarwar-foundation-to-grant-100-scholarships.
ii) http://fp.brecorder.com/2016/04/2016040532506/
iii) http://conduct.biselahore.com/ShowInstitutions.aspx
iv) https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=open_access_etds
v) Bhatti, Mukhtar Ahmad; Afzal, Mian Muhammad (21 January 1987). "Secondary Education in Pakistan: Perspective Planning". National Education Council – via Google Books.
vi)http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1940&context=honors_theses

Do these sources mention google maps? M A A Z T A L K 21:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma'az: Why don't you stop cluttering this nomination by constantly and repeatedly citing the sources. You've made your point so let the closing ed decided whether to keep or delete this page. No one needs to be so overzealous. --Saqib (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. None of the sources provided amount to significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:38, 22 January 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. This is a Keep rather than no-consensus because there is no real dispute that the allegations are well documented, the only substantive question hinges on whether this can be covered adequately in the main article. The arguments appear to me to credibly support the idea that a separate article is the best way of covering these allegations with adequate nuance and context to satisfy WP:BLP, but without overwhelming an already lengthy main article. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Allen sexual assault allegations[edit]

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

Delete - Virtually the entirety of this simply repeats what's found at Woody Allen — a verbatim copy-paste. The material is certainly important in the context of his life, yet since anyone can allege anything, and no proof of any sexual assault or harassment, let alone criminal charges, has ever been documented despite multiple proceedings and trial-by-public, this entire article outside of its context is hugely WP:UNDUE and seems to exist only to "shame" the subject. Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created 2 days ago. I think this is eligible for WP:A10. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:ARTICLESIZE. The section about this in the parent article at Woody Allen is too long and it became necessary to split it into this subarticle. Dylan Farrow's allegations against Allen are obviously of lasting significance and have garnered a huge amount of news coverage especially since she has written about the alleged incident and multiple actors and actresses have expressed regret for participating in his films because of it.--The lorax (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The allegations have gained enduring coverage, and several actors have said recently that they regret having worked with him. After Weinstein, #MeToo and Time's Up, the coverage is likely to continue. A well-written article based only on high-quality sources would be beneficial, and it would allow us to cover the allegations summary-style in the BLP so that they overwhelm it less. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNDUE, as the only reason this controversy continues to be in the news is its continued use as publicity. Additionally, there is still zero valid controversy regarding his 20 year marriage to Soon Yi beyond the affect she had on Mia and Woody's relationship. If this article is kept, will we be seeing articles of this type for all notable humans who have been merely accused of a crime? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 04:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A section on Woody Allen's article has always been sufficient. This 25 year old story never had the political ramification that the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations or Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal did. See the similar AfD regarding Matt Lauer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations, which closed as merge.LM2000 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we really need a new article about one allegation by one person? Not to mention it's decades-old and thrown out of court. Is there new evidence that should be made aware of? Or is it merely gossip mongering? Gene2010 (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SlimVirgin. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Weinstein, #MeToo and Time's Up: these are all notable subjects but we aren't discussing them. Just because we can arguably throw this into the pot doesn't mean it is notable. Having a seperate article on allegations and gossip that never had the same ramifications as, say Weinstein, is WP:UNDUE, especially when the main article can easily detail the allegations.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Billhpike (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's been a significant topic for decades. If it's a copy-paste split, then fix it by removing the copied text from the main article and giving attribution on the split. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's good policy to reward someone for refusing to follow split-discussion protocol. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unneeded content fork; The content should be / is covered in the main article already. Copy/paste is not an appropriate WP:SPLIT process. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the fact of extensive references which are in-depth. Per coverage which has been consistent for decades..Article meets WP:GNG. Many of the Delete !votes above are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS per Weinstein comments and WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Saying that editors should follow split-discussion protocol is not IDONTLIKEIT. Also, no one is questioning the validity of the content, only that it completely duplicates part of an already existing article. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the content is already in Woody Allen as it is, and I've seen no convincing reason here why it would need its own separate article as a standalone topic. Keep arguments based on notability and sourcing are missing the point, because nobody's suggested that notability or sourcing are absent — the point is that Wikipedia policy also requires us to pay some mind to what's the best context to present content in, such as the question of whether the topic needs its own standalone article or is better handled as a subsection of another related article that already exists, and I have yet to see anybody in this discussion present a compelling reason why this needs its own independent spinoff article rather than being addressed in Allen's existing BLP. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, the issue is extremely complex, and only part of it has been explained in the Allen BLP. I don't want to list the things not mentioned because they would have to be written carefully and in context. The section can't be lengthened because it is arguably already too long for a biography. Another issue is that there are three principal figures: Woody Allen, Mia Farrow and Dylan Farrow, all living people. In the Allen BLP, there is an effort (rightly) to make sure the text is BLP-compliant as it relates to him, but there is no corresponding effort (in that bio) to do the same for the women. Moving the issue to a stand-alone article solves both problems. We will be able to explain what happened clearly without having to worry about overwhelming other sections, and it will become more obvious that there are multiple, competing BLP interests.
Another two points are worth noting. First, Vox recently called this "one of the most visible and acrimonious scandals of the early 1990s". [22] (That article is a good summary of the key issues.) Had Wikipedia existed then, we would have had a stand-alone article rather than splitting it between BLPs. Second, the sub-section in Allen is likely to keep getting longer because people are discussing it again; since December 2017 five actors have apologized for having worked with him. None of that can be explained properly within the BLP. For example, for length reasons, we can't discuss actors who have spoken positively or actors who have been discussed but won't comment. We can't discuss the rewards ceremonies that were marked by online protests from two of the principals and another family member. None of it can be mentioned because it would overwhelm the biography. When you find that happening in an article, and where the sources are high quality, it indicates that a split is needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is all fine, but it's the discussion that the editor who created this page was supposed to have initited before he unilaterally took it upon himself to decide for the rest of the community.

The honorable thing for that editor to do would be to agree to the deleting of the article and then do a WP:SPLIT discussion the way every other responsible editor would have done it. If we're going to circumvent the established protocol — which was designed to prevent contentious duplications just like this — then why have a SPLIT process at all? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, I was thinking we could move it to Allen–Farrow family dispute or Allen–Farrow custody dispute. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to !vote here (though I think, in general, that there is little need to spinout such an article) - however if this goes, then Delete !voters here should nominate Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations and Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations - as opposed to Weinstein & Moore, allegations around Allen have been covered in-depth for over 20 years - it didn't go away. I'm not sure we'll be talking about Weinstein in 10 years and I'm pretty sure that (assuming he won't be running again for office (fairly safe just on his age)) that we won't be talking about Moore much.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I can see the Moore issue being a big one in the 2020 election. Orrin Hatch's decision to not run for reelection may have in part been brought about because his unwillingness to totally distance himself from Moore outraged the Utah electorate's total non-acceptance of Moore. I can see both potential primary opponents and general election opponents of Trump playing the Moore card in 2020. I can see Trump himself trying to emphasize that he did not support Moore before the primary election. The allegations against Allen have just never become so broadly covered in the media as those against Weinstein and Moore. On the other hand, I see lots of good arguments to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue here is that this is a specific accusation that turned into a long, drawn out case. There is just too much relevant detail here to adequately cover in a biological article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a proper WP:SPINOUT from the biographical article. The RS coverage of these issues has been voluminous and WP:SUSTAINED. Including this much information at Woody Allen would be WP:UNDUE. Note that if this is kept, the summary at Woody_Allen#Sexual-assault_allegations should be trimmed per WP:SUMMARY. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this isn't a POVFORK, since the info is already there. I agree with 24.151.116.12 that the original info should be culled, and with SlimVirgin that the section of the Woody Allen article would get too long without this WP:SPINOUT. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether it is a reasonable split or not, I have to agree that it had to be discussed on the main article's talk page first. Excelse (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is one question here and one question alone: Is this fork an UNDUE fork, or is it not. Closing administrators are not interested in the notability as that is practically an obvious: yes this is notable. That would happen to almost any allegation like this, but especially one involving 3 notable persons who we have BLPs on here at this site. I will likely be closing this, as I see that there are some gender-related arguments already being presented in this discussion and I want to be sure that such arguments are thouroughly taken into account as well, as I'm strictly against us pushing a pro-male or pro-female bias (the former seeming to be the most common due to the editor ratio here). I will consult (or close the discussion concurrently, if they'd prefer) with someone who I think everyone will agree has the same viewpoint but from a female perspective, to ensure my gender isn't also an issue here. Some may take this concept as me saying I will supervote, that is not the case, I will only apply the consensus that we are able to determine from the discussion while ensuring no personal biases get in the way, and am doing as such to ensure that all systemic biases are also taken into account. This has the potential to be a highly contentious discussion, due to the nature of the topic, so I ask that everyone remember that we all want this to be the most accurate encyclopedia it can be (even if there are bad apples around sometimes... but I don't see anyone in this discussion who doesn't seem to have the right intentions). Let's try and work together to see if there is any firm consensus that can come out of this, as of now, the consensus remains unclear.

Please pose any questions about this atypical type of comment in a relist (and one that isn't necessarily "orthodox", although our lack of female editor retention tends to be) to my talk page if you can, as I do not intend to distract from the goal of finding the best way forward with this article via further discussion (while ensuring this discussion is not toxic for our female contributors... after already hearing several complaints about this over the past few years).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic to the deletion discussion, but a thread is open now at ANI for anyone who would like to discuss this further. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

We can continue to discuss this to the end of the world. The reality is that this is notable. Notability is notability. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly recommend you read Coffee's relist statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, if the result is no consensus, that's how it should be closed, and there was no need to relist it. It does sound as though you're planning to cast a supervote, so I'd appreciate it if you'd let someone else close it. Timely action would be appreciated because an interview with the alleged victim is about to be broadcast by CBS, which will mean the need to add even more to the BLP if this article doesn't exist. We need a decision. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would advocate the decision is that we follow proper protocol, delete this improperly started article, and do a WP:SPLIT discussion the way we're supposed to, and which will also provide the opportunity to detail what to leave on the old page should a split occur. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Common practice is that if consensus cannot be determined within the first 7 days, a relist is conducted for up to two more 7 day periods. I will not be casting a supervote of any form (nor will my colleague), I am purely stating I plan to close it with another administrator. It is because of the unorthodox nature of a two-admin close that I am making the point to state this will be happening before it does, that is all. I hope you at least give the close a chance before making a decision about its merits. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting is for discussions where "insufficient discussion took place to determine a consensus or lack thereof". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. There has been sufficient discussion here to determine that. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewing administrator I specifically determined that discussion sufficient enough to determine any consensus had not happened before the relist. This type of relist is standard procedure, as these discussions are not votes. Even if every single person who commented here after this made the exact same arguments for deletion as above, the arguments for retention would hold no less weight. And I surely doubt that having two administrators (of two genders) close this can possibly be this contentious. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is well sourced, notable and more in depth than what is at the Woody Allen article, this article is notable in itself, as allegations on Woody Allen and should be kept. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The reality of Allen's "proclivities" isn't a new thing, it's been around since the early 1990s and has never lost steam. The article is well written and sourced properly. I see no reason whatsoever to remove it from this encyclopedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find SarahSV's arguments to be compelling. This article ought to be improved and expanded rather than being deleted. Significantly expanded content is not appropriate for the three BLPs, so a spinout article is appropriate in this case, especially because of recent developments. While I understand Tenebrae's concerns about the technicalities of the process by which this article was created, please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you care about those problems, then clean them up and talk constructively to the editor that made the mess. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - entirely appropriate to spin this topic off into its own article given the volume and history of notable and reliable sources on the topic. Woody Allen is obviously a notable person irrespective of the allegations, and the parent article (Woody Allen) was becoming overloaded. If the parent article still contains too much duplicate content to what's in the child article, then the parent article should be pared down. fish&karate 08:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also a supplementary comment - we don't need any attention-seeking non-standard closes, on this or any other xFD discussion. We have a policy and guidelines on how to close deletion discussions which have been arrived at through the consensus and collaborative work of thousands of contributors over 17 years, let's stick to that. fish&karate 08:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know what else we've had for over 17 years? A very toxic environment for female editors/admins, and a very low retention rate of them because of it. This isn't a paper encyclopedia, in fact one of the pillars of this site is for us to be WP:BOLD. Incredible to see someone who is supposed to be an administrator casting aspersions just because I faultily tried something and then decided against it. Why you found it necessary to say something like that is beyond me. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Would you be so kind as to hat this at some point, or at least make sure we don't take this entire discussion off-track somehow? I really would have preferred if User:Fish and karate had taken this concern to my talk page... but alas, we're here now and I felt it necessary to at least not allow myself or my actions intent to be misrepresented as "attention-seeking". I think you of all people know I'm not like that, nor do I enjoy being yelled at profusely. I took a lot of time pondering this whole thing before I ever made the relist, but even that didn't help me this time at all apparently. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:20, 18 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D 2D & D 3D[edit]

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

No evidence or claim of notability & sourced entirely by self-authored papers. See also power~enwiki's PROD removed by the author. Cabayi (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These appear to be handy but completely non-notable programs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any mention in any reliable source. Elmidae's "completely non-notable" may be an understatement.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nothing that there aren't many other graphing programs doing, and a serious lack of secondary sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 24 January 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 Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology. Consensus was clearly to merge into the parent article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GIK Institute Clock Tower[edit]

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

Local tower in the university, clearly not notable. Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:COI here please as I can see from nom three years back. If you are from Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology, then please don't comment here. Alternate would be to redirect. Störm (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous nom. samee ^talk 12:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology seems to be the obvious solution. If it's part of the Institute and a symbol of the Institute then why is a separate article (with little if any extra information) warranted? I don't see its purpose. Granted, it is clearly a very tall and noticeable clock tower, but was it built separately for a different reason, or simply to give the Institute a 'presence'? Doesn't seem to be independently notable, in my view. Sionk (talk) 11:43, 14 January 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, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sionk's explanation. Also Storm, students and faculty of the institute have every right to comment on this nomination if they want; we don't block people from commenting on an AfD as long as they advance a good reason for their vote!. If Sionk hadn't been persuasive I might've asked for a speedy keep based on a WP:BADFAITH nomination. Keep cool and nominate neutrally, please. Nate • (chatter) 12:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the parent article, per Sionk. I'm all for including Urdu and Pashto sources, as suggested by Mar4d in the previous AfD, in order to establish independent notability. But none were added ever since. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent per current lacking sourcing and args above, and can be SPINOUT if needed later. Widefox; talk 11:43, 22 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volotea destinations[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an online catalog. List of Volotea destinations is non-encyclopedic and belongs to Volotea's website, where it is kept up-to-date. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Volotea#Destinations. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is empty section with only link to this page. A useless directory does not become encyclopedic if one merged it into somewere.Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural Keep~~ until the discussion at WP:VPP is resolved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural keep~~ as per Power~enwiki. I was going to earlier as I had this on my watchlist but Power bet me to it. :) J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 07:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to wait until February then probably redirect. Another relist for procedural reasons will fulfill that. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I can read the writing on the wall at the RfC. Some (brief and entirely new content) on the topic would be appropriate at Volotea, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a proxy for the company website. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 21 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Zirin[edit]

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

This WP:AUTOBIO was speedily deleted twice (2x), followed by five (5x) rejections at AfC, before being accepted on the sixth attempt.

Unfortunately, I can't see how it's improved to pass WP:GNG.

The subject has written two books which are claimed to have been "bestsellers" (the claim sourced to an autobiography on nyc.gov), however, the actual name of the bestseller list is not specified and I can't find.
4 of the seven references listed are unambiguously WP:RSSELF; a fifth is "probably" RSSELF (the probable autobio on nyc.gov); the sixth and seventh are short reviews of the subject's books that provide no biographical information on the subject.
Large sections of core biographical information of this BLP are unsourced and will never be able to be sourced due to the paucity of RS information about this person. We don't even have enough RS information to establish such basic elements of a bio as an approximate date / place of birth.
His service on the New York City Commission to Combat Police Corruption does not pass WP:NPOL.
Hosting a show on a college TV station does not indicate notability.
His former work as an AUSA is not notable as there are thousands of AUSAs at any given moment.
The claim that one of his books has received a Kirkus Star is unremarkable; Kirkus Reviews is a (partial) pay-for-play reviewer and 10% of their reviews receive a Kirkus Star. It's not the Nobel Prize or the Booker Award.

I recommend that, if deletion is approved, this article then be WP:SALTED or we will be in a revolving carousel of continual recreation for the next decade.
(Pinging previous persons active on the draft and deleted versions of this article: User:Chrissymad, User:Ladypaperclip, User:Kvng, User:Sulfurboy, User:C.Fred, User:Mr. MacTidy.) Chetsford (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check 1. Book reviews do, in fact, establish notability as per WP:AUTHOR #.3; Contrary to Chetsford's assertion, below, it is impossible to pay for a marriage announcement article in the New York Times (you can pay for a boxed ad announcing anything you choose, but weddings are editorial and cannot be bought); and Contrary to Chetsfords assertion below, there are many articles with WP:SIGCOV, in addition to article Zirin wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it looks like you just fill-out an online form and the Times will run your wedding announcement for free [23]. Chetsford (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial as this is, you are wrong. The NYTimes gets inundated with requests to cover people's marriages. So they have a system: you fill in the form, they decide if you're notable (highly accomplished bride and/or groom, or child of highly notable parents, or unusual and interesting couple) they assign a journalist to fact check and writer the actual copy. It is important to read links you use to support an assertion carefully, or to know what you're talking about. This link reads: The Times does not charge for publishing these reports, but space is limited and we cannot guarantee publication. If it is published..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears correct. From my understanding, the NY Times has regular announcements and a more in-depth Vows column. Both are fact-checked (FAQ's: "Submissions are rewritten, fact-checked and edited to Times standards"). This Times article, "Writing the Vows Column Means Crashing Weddings for a Living", states: "Anyone can submit an application online, from which Ms. Wilcox and her staff choose "very subjectively".... Chosen announcements are then thoroughly fact checked... For those that become a full Vows feature, a Times reporter and photographer attend the wedding ceremony and reception...". --Animalparty! (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? I was agreeing with you. Chetsford (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His books have received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as the Economist and Slate. Doesn't that make him notable as an author? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews don't establish the type of deep biographical information necessary for a BLP. They don't tell us about his birthplace, his DOB, his education, his career background. They only prove he is a living human. Being a living human is not sufficient to establish notability. Chetsford (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the notability criteria for creative persons book reviews do establish notability for an author. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention" I think it would be strange of an artist or authors works were notable but they weren't. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment The article was speedily deleted twice due to copyright violations not because the subject was found not notable. The number of attempts at AFC is not so relevant as there were more copyvios which were corrected, and there is a learning curve for new writers. I am surprised to read this long opinionated assessment of the nominator here today, when he has been so busy at AFC reviewing over 100 articles in 24 hours on his first day of AFC reviewing, with 21 in one hour during that time. 2 to 3 minutes per draft is hardly time for most editors to even read over the draft and do a copyvio check. It looks like perhaps that your speed has made the AFC process and wikipedia suffer, much less the probable loss of many first time editors. Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to play this game I'd note you have a 59.1% match rate [24] here at AfD while I have a 91.6% match [25]. So perhaps we should keep the comments focused on notability of the article, and not attack each other's competence as editors and reviewers. Sound good? Chetsford (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Yes FloridaArmy it does. There are multiple reviews of his books in WP:RS and with the other references as well the subject certainly passes WP:GNG. Also the nominator stated will never be able to be sourced. New sources come online all the time, as well other sources which were not found previously could turn up. One really cannot make that statement accurately. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews (can) establish the notability of books, not authors (see: WP:BKCRIT). Per our WP:GNG: significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. The two book reviews only establish that he wrote two books. Notability is not demonstrated simply by proving a person is real and alive. As Chrissymad explained to Mr. Zirin on her talk page after she rejected a version of his autobiography substantially similar to the one you approved: "The issue is that neither of these sources are coverage of the individual." [26] Chetsford (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline - it's not a great article - Zirin does seem to have written a lot of articles for the Washington Times, but that doesn't help improve an article. If federal judges pass WP:NPOL why don't federal prosecutors? Federal judges aren't elected either ... Im leaning towards thinking a federal prosecutor meets the guideline. But I'm not sure how much improvement can be expected in terms of content for the article. SeraphWiki (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great question, SeraphWiki. I think the reason federal judges are notable, and prosecutors are not, is that (according to our article United States federal judge), there have been 3,294 in the 242 history of the United States. Meanwhile, there were 5,300 federal prosecutors just in the year 2008 alone. [27]. (To be clear, though, the 93 United States Attorneys are notable, however, Zirin's unsourced claim is that he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney; of which there are 5,000+ at any one time, ranging from seasoned litigators to freshly minted 25 year-old JDs). Chetsford (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*comment The claim you state is unsourced is because you keep removing the sourced citation for it as part of your disruption to the article. ^[1]Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lacypaperclip - could I kindly ask you to please properly thread your comments so they're easier to follow? It can be disruptive when you push each of your comments into the first position and slap a new bolded alert onto them. Also, I know I've asked this before but if there's a way I can convince you to focus your discussion on the notability of the subject instead of attacking the intentions of other editors that would be great. It does sidetrack the process a bit. You created a dedicated space here to question my competence so perhaps you could corral your commentary about me to that space? I appreciate your help. Chetsford (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*comment When an editor makes a comment they can use comment to delineate it. I have done nothing disruptive here. I was pointing out that your statement that the claim was unsourced is not true. I have the right to point that out and explain that you kept removing it so everyone could understand why the statement is unsourced at the moment. I am keeping other discussions now at their proper venues. You do not need to convince me of anything or "tell me how to focus on discussion". Please keep your comments on the content not the contributors. I was focusing on the notability of the subject and a claim about him which is supported by a reliable source. That is not attacking others intentions. Lacypaperclip (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "International Academy of Trial Lawyers". Home. January 10, 1940. Retrieved January 10, 2018.

Comment I searched newspapers.com and I did find quite a bit of significant press from the 60s and 70s-one article about corruption charges where he is mentioned by name 6 times. Others are passing mentions but a lot of them, mostly in the publisher's extra pages I don't have access too but it looks like content that could be pieced together to make a reasonably decent article. Not every article needs to have multiple full length books dedicated to the topic to be worthwhile, but I think the current article is more a G11 issue than AfD.SeraphWiki (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too and was thinking the same thing! On further investigation, though, it appeared to be a quote in the same AP story about a single trial. Because it was an AP story it was syndicated/reprinted by dozens of papers. And, unfortunately I don't think Mr. Zirin's 14-word quote about a criminal defendant in 1970 contributes to his own notability (though, perhaps, about the defendant). I agree that, if kept, this would be an exceptionally odd bio. It's unusual to have so little RS on the subject that we can't even reliably say what he was doing during the 43 year period between 1973 (when he was a junior prosecutor) and 2016 (when his book came out). Mr. Zirin is truly the J.D. Salinger of American jurisprudence! Chetsford (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Terrible terrible article. It certainly does not pass WP:BIO WP:GNG. If it did, there would coverage. scope_creep (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with no prejudice against recreating the article in the future. Like Seraph, I find this borderline. He seems like someone who "should" be notable but the sources don't quite seem to get us there. DocumentError (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an article with so many claims to notability, there sure aren't many independent sources to back them up. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This article subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which are currently found in the article. It should be pointed out that when this article was nominated it had only 7 references and the coverage on the subject has been increased to over 40 references which include New York Times, La Times, Forbes plus many others too numerous to mention here. Also, as FloridaArmy stated there are several reviews about his books which are from reliable sources. Another editor mentions a lot of coverage on newspapers dot com from several decades ago. Remember sources only have to be available, not necessarily already placed in the article. This article with it wealth of sources passes WP:GNG and needs to be expanded not deleted. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"over 40 references which include New York Times, La Times, Forbes"

Note that all of these are op-eds written by Jim Zirin himself. IOW, the NY Times, LA Times, and Forbes are not writing about Jim Zirin. Getting the NYT to publish your letters to the editor and op-eds doesn't meet the requirement of BLPS for sources WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject, as Chrissymad explained. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::15 of the 40 are op-ed pieces not all. Please do not mis-represent the facts Chesterford. Thank you. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually there are 17 total, 15 are op-eds, 1 is a paid obituary [28] and 1 is a paid marriage notice. Chetsford (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Don't try to obfuscate now. There are 15 op-eds not 40 like you wrote previously. More importantly now there are even more references listed than before, the largest majority being from mainstream sources. I was wondering Chesterford do you have a COI regarding this matter? The reason I am so politely asking is that you seem to so adamantly object to anything at every juncture. It has even come to the point where you have marked a New York Times paid death notice as unreliable? You must be confusing the fact that a paid notice can, of course not be used to help with notability, but to call the New York Times unreliable? Maybe you need to step back from this article, and let the article and AFD be judged fairly by the community. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, that doesn't seem right. By my calculations we have 17, not 40. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And that's okay! As for paid notices, please see WP:RS. Advertisements are not considered RS. A paid death notice is simply a classified ad that appears in the obits section of a newspaper. It is not subject to the editorial control of journalists. Chetsford (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Gee, Chetsford, why can you not just admit your error? Bythebook librarian said 15 were op ed pieces, yet you keep saying the two other items are as well. The two paid notices are not op eds. I really think By the book gave you some good advice. You seem to have claimed WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, and most of the time will not let improvements stay in the article. Part of AFD is working to improve the article. On another topic, I would like to know the answer to the question you skipped above? It is an important issue to note. Simply do have a COI with this article subject, have you ever met him, do you know someone in the family? Is there any link to him, or maybe do you not like attorneys? Please just leave a simple yes or no answer. Because if you happen to say yes, your arguments here may be seen under a different light, and the closing admin has a right to know the information. Thank you. One other thing I have found a source about the books being on the bestsellers list. I am going to try and find one or two more then I will add that info back to the article. Lacypaperclip (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Chetsford, have you been involved with many afds involving an author as you are incorrect when you state "Book reviews don't establish the type of deep biographical information necessary for a BLP." and "Book reviews (can) establish the notability of books, not authors (see: WP:BKCRIT)." According to WP:NAUTHOR "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [an author's body of work are their books]. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." so with Zirin, Mother Court is held by around 290 libraries and Supremely Partisan 370 libraries, that could be deemed as "well-known" for these kinds of books, but what about reviews? well, Supremely Partisan (SP) has a Kirkus starred review, you state "The claim that one of his books has received a Kirkus Star is unremarkable; Kirkus Reviews is a (partial) pay-for-play reviewer and 10% of their reviews receive a Kirkus Star. It's not the Nobel Prize or the Booker Award." is misleading as although this may be the case here (and with other of their recent reviews), as a book review magazine that is over 80 years old it is not necessarily true about all their reviews (but i digress:)). SP has also been reviewed in The Times here and The Spectator here Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries (Choice) here, The East Hampton Star here (may be deemed "too local"?), and ABA Journal here, so meets WP:NBOOK; with Mother Court it has been reviewed by Choice, ForeWord Magazine Reviews, Library Journal here, The Providence Journal here (another local?:)), The Law Society Gazette here, The Times here, The New York Review of Books here, New York Law Journal here, Quest (lifestyle magazine) here, The Journal: of the Law Society of Scotland here, and The Economist here, it too meets nbook, so Zirrin has authored two books that are well known and have received multiple reviews meaning that he meets WP:AUTHOR and so is a Keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great points and supporting arguements Coolabahapple I agree with you and will duly update my !vote rationale and say this subject passes WP:AUTHOR and passes WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AUTHOR, the subject has created two works which have received significant critical attention. In addition, this encyclopedia article need not be long to be complete, neutral, and well-written, and subjects can be notable without all biographical details being substantially documented. However, it just so happens that Zirin has biographical entries in Who's Who in America 1994 (pg. 3781) and Who's Who in America 1998 (pg. 4785) which verify birth date, parents, academic career, and professional career up to 1997. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete surprising not more has been written about him ... I see the Who's Who but this appears to be a pay for play Who's Who scam version of Who's Who ... opposing proposal to salt Burley22 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Burley22 but the claim that being included in Marquis Who's Who is a "scam" is absurd, baseless, and borderline conspiracy theory territory. What 'scam' is involved in getting your biographical information in published books year after year? True, if self-nominated it doesn't prove notability on its own (this is explicitly noted in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_note-note4-6. But the Who's Who entries don't need to satisfy notability, Zirin's books do: read WP:AUTHOR. And there is no compelling reason to doubt the information therein, especially if it is not contradicted by other sources (and yes, even reliable sources may sometimes contain errors or contradict each other, but so what?). In an earlier time, many journalists and researchers would start with a Marquis book or other biographical directory. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think we can use a bunch of opinion pieces written by the subject of the article as reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject of the article. Without those, there's nothing substantial. PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not using his opinion pieces to satisfy notability. Read WP:AUTHOR: "The person's work (or works) ... has won significant critical attention" Zirin has authored two books (The Mother Court and Supremely Partisan), which have received significant critical attention from independent sources. Zirin's work has undoubtedly been recognized. In addition to the reviews Coolabahapple has listed above, Zirin's work has been reviewed by The New York Times (here), The Federalist (here), Above the Law ( here ), and Foreward Reviews (here). In addition to print, Zirin's work has been discussed on television: Here's Zirin on Morning Joe. Here's Zirin on C-SPAN. Here's Zirin on KTTV, Los Angeles. If someone is invited on air for national or major regional television, I think that indicates notability. Zirin's own syndicated talk show (Conversations In The Digital Age) appears in public television outlets in New York as well as Kentucky,[29], Texas[30], and possibly elsewhere. From existing sources, Zirin's works have received attention in England and Scotland, as well as the United States.

And while Zirin's op-eds alone do not vouch for notability, the reception of such Op-Eds can. Zirin's essays have been cited in multiple books,^[1]^[2]^[3] and at least one essay has been reprinted in an anthology.^[4]

Lastly, I want to remind everyone that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the present state of an article. A person need not be covered extensively since birth to meet notability criteria. WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" For Zirin, we have two notable books, and sufficient verifiable biographical information to flesh out a short biography. An article need not be long to be notable. A concise biography of two or three paragraphs is probably all that is needed to neutrally and accurately assert what Zirin is known for. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Weidenbaum, Murray; Hughes, Samuel (1996). The Bamboo Network. New York: Free Press. p. 137. ISBN 9780684822891.
^ Torr, James D. (2005). The Patriot Act. San Diego, Calif.: Lucent Books. p. 47. ISBN 9781590187746.
^ Nancy S. Lind; Erik T. Rankin (2015). Privacy in the Digital Age: 21st-Century Challenges to the Fourth Amendment. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-2971-0.
^ Friedman, Lauri S. (2006). The Patriot Act. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. p. 30. ISBN 9780737735253.

Delete This article relies to heavily on works by the subject to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states that notable works establish the notability of a subject. He's an author so producing notable books establishes his notability. What would you have an author be notable for? And being an author is only one aspect of his notability.FloridaArmy (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy That would be true if there were any other non-primary, run of the mill sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what makes sources such as this New York Yimes Book review about his work run of the mill? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*comment No, of it is not run of the mill! It is the new york times! lol. I would like to update my !vote, to add that due to Zirin's two notable books he passes WP:AUTHOR, since there has been critical discussion about him and the books in RS, and that, as well this article subject clearly passes WP:GNG for significant coverage over some 45 sources which are WP:RS. Also, please let me remind everybody, when this article was nominated there were only 7 citations in the article. I feel that with the help of several editors, we have greatly improved this article. Lurkers and commenters that have not placed a !vote and rationale yet, there is still time to do so if you wish. Pinging participants here who have only commented, but placed no !vote yet: FloridaArmy, DocumentError, SeraphWiki If I missed anyone who has not voted, I am sorry! Also wanted to let every one know, I updated and added a new section for Philanthropy with multiple citations from The Associated Press and the New York Times. Please read over the article if you have not lately. Thanks. Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the books aren't notable either; read the "articles"; they're just like the bio: trivial coverage like perfunctory reviews, so they don't pass WP:GNG either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Same goes for the two stubs on his books, Supremely Partisan and The Mother Court. Wikipedia's just being used to promote this man and his buyable work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep a great deal of sourcing for the man, his career and his books exists. Article needs improvement, but coverage is there, going back years, with, but mostly without middle initial. Suggest the use of keywords, I looked using the book titles (short versions, without subtitles) and book reviews, coverage of books NOT by Zirin, reported stuff and book reviews in major papers coma up. I added a few of the book reviews. Granted, page needs editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coolabahapple and Animalparty have ably outlined the guidelines-based rationale. His first book was reviewed by The Times (London), The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Times, The Economist, and the Providence Journal.[31][32][33][34][35][36] His second book was reviewed by The Sunday Times and The Spectator.[37][38] These eight reviews alone meet WP:AUTHOR criterion #3 and then some. The subject is notable. Any other problems - autobiography and overuse of non-independent sources - can be dealt with by editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sustained coverage of subject found. Article still needs improvement, but it satisfies WP:AUTHOR and passes WP:GNG as it now stands. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A 'No consensus' close would be possible at this stage, but I think it's worth relistin/g Hopefully a way can be found of parsing the nature of the sources presented, in an attempt to assess what weightj, if any, should be given them in establishing notability: Reliable and independent, or paid op-eds? That is your question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er... wrong question. The fact that Zirin has penned op-eds and articles (some may have been paid placements - I don't know) is irrelevant, raised by some iVoters as a straw man. The question for editors here is the usual question at AfD: Is there WP:SIGCOV in secondary WP:RSes?

Note I regularly edit AUTHOR AfDs. In gauging the notability, writing a book that gets reviews published in multiple significant venues is seen as passing WP:AUTHOR # 3. In addition Zirin is frequently quoted in articles like Judges Playfully Dispute Whether New York’s Federal Court Is the Oldest (New York Times), and his personal life, career and philanthropy are reliably sourced MoMA’s Makeover Rethinks the Presentation of Art. Even the book parties introducing his books get coverage in mainstream media [Supreme expert], an article in The Times (of London) about a celebrity book party for Supremely Partisan held in 2016 at the Savoy Hotel. Mirin passes WP:AUTHOR. Keep (as I wrote above).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That would apply if an author were being reviewed in general-audience publications, but that's not the case here. This is specialist writing reviewed in specialist publications that make a point of trying to review everything new that comes out in that field; it's trivial, rote coverage. Whether an author is cited/quoted by others doesn't establish notability, or we'd have 100,000+ more articles on academics than we do. Many people also make their living as "spokespeople" being quoted on things in the press (it's what gets them invited to be speakers at events for which they get paid, and so on). For example, I've been interviewed for publication many hundreds of times, been on various radio shows, interviewed on BBC News and other TV shows, presented at conferences, etc., but that doesn't make me notable, just competent at PR and media relations. Having had various op-eds published (BT;DT myself, too) also indicates competency as an essayist, not notability. I'm also a published author (Harper Collins, 1998) and have had articles written about me in highly topical, not general-audience, publications, and again I'm not notable. My book has been reviewed multiple times, again in highly specialized works for the most part, and is – guess what? – not notable. Zirin isn't special, he's just very self-promotional like all people in his line of work. This isn't really any different at all from a band that actually has an album that wasn't produced at home and has had some reviews in 'zines and (these days) websites devoted to their genre and some airtime on college radio. If they're not covered in-depth in general-audience publications, they're not notable. Highly topically specialized publishing, especially that dedicated to churning out reviews, essentially fails WP:INDY because it lacks distance from the subject matter, and is highly, often entirely, dependent on the advertising dollars of the publishers the output of which they're reviewing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Reviews of his books have run in The Times (of London), The Providence Journal, The Spectator, The New York Review of Books, The Economist, the New York Times, and other mass-circulation, non-specialist publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is attacking the (imagined/inferred) method by which Zirin's books became noticed, not the fact that they have achieved notice. If all media coverage were merely repackaged press releases, then a case might be made . --Animalparty! (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If, as some arguing for deletion have suggested, Zirin's two books do not warrant notability due to perceived insufficient depth of coverage, a plausible compromise could be to merge the two books into this article, as again, WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". It is clear that Zirin's writing is what he is most widely known for (here's a magazine article on Zirin's book release party). To be fair, based on presently existing sources I can't foresee either book article becoming much more than stubs while still meeting WP:NPOV, and even if they meet WP:GNG, consensus may determine they are better off presented in the author's article. I again remind all that the current state of this article does not impact notability. In my opinion it currently devotes too much text to trivial or affiliated sources, and could easily be consolidated by a third or more, but Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Zirin's books have received widespread secondary coverage in both general and specific reader sources. His biographical details are less widely covered, but verifiable due to reliable publication in Who's Who and New York Times. And even primary/affiliated sources, and those self-published by the subject can be used sparingly per WP:PRIMARY, WP:BIASED, WP:SELFSOURCE. Zirin is by no means the most notable lawyer or writer in New York, but from existing coverage, a policy-compliant article can be made that follows the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer Lacypaperclip and Bythebooklibrary have both been indeffed as sockpuppets. For ease of bookkeeping, I've taken the liberty of striking their comments as suggested by the essay WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Chetsford (talk) 03:47, 23 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gimme Gimme Gimme cast members[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Main cast already listed at the series article, the "guest cast" barely deserves a mention. --wooden superman 09:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Gimme Gimme Gimme. Vorbee (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 17 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faqir Muhammad[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill bio of teacher. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that he also seems to have held a pretty senior position at the UN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The "first Pakistani to get a PHD from a particular program at a specific US university" is the type of ludicrous first that shows why we need to move away from allowing any articles for "first X to do Y".John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it is, but that's not the only reason he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It says he was the Acting Secretary General of the United Nations in 1993 and before that was in other important United Nations roles but I don't think that is true. See this list of actual Secretary General's of the UN does not include him. Also there is no mention of him on the internet doing any of the things it says in the article. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the only reference says:

PHP Warning:  mysql_connect() [<a href='function.mysql-connect'>function.mysql-connect</a>]: Access denied for user 'nimweb12'@'iis02.ptcl.local' (using password: YES) in \\FSVS01\Website_I\nimlhr.gov.pk\www.nimlhr.gov.pk\Content\www\frmBridge.php on line 1631

Delete. The only thing that appears close to a claim of significance is the "acting secretary general" claim, and as Ilyina points out we have no sources (nor can Google find sources) for this. So this part fails WP:V and without it there is very little. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 20 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 73 (book)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guideline for books, and a lot of the content is a duplicate of the existing article Pan Am Flight 73. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 11:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely promotional article for a book. Neiltonks (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, possible speedy delete. Poorly-written and littered with redlinks, as well as failing WP:PROMOTION. Curious where @Naypta: saw the content as being duplicated, we could put it forward under CSD if that's the case. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 15:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Etzedek24: I was meaning that the only factual content on the page was covering content already in existence at Pan Am Flight 73. Whilst I agree most of it is ads, I wasn't sure it was matching the strict criteria for unambiguous advertising. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 20:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK Hagennos (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published without claim to notability. Blackguard 06:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 24 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of park golf courses in Aomori[edit]

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

No indication of notability, content is about ten years out of date. A similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of park golf courses in Miyagi has already been deleted I am also nominating the following related pages because the article is of similar nature:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear cut case. The same style and format as the Miyagi article already deleted. Nigej (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:29, 22 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Muzaffarnagar triple murder[edit]

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

A tragic incident that did not receive much coverage except for a few days. Media did report on this, but just as a news story, of which there are many everyday. In my opinion wikipedia articles should only feature those incidents that have had lasting coverage (more than a few days) in the media. Elektricity (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Can't see coverage after October 2014. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see coverage in 2015 and onward (though I am possibly missing Hindi sources - amendable to change my !vote if there are some).Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates Wikipedia's not-news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as villagers organized a mahapanchayat to protest againt the killings http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/after-triple-murder-up-braces-for-mahapanchayat/story-kZnfBRR6QcOx2rXzkVcGgJ.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.140.185 (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC) — 42.110.140.185 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS MT Train^Discuss 06:34, 21 January 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. The subject passes Wikipedia:LASTING and Wikipedia:SUSTAINED. (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 08:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Bhiwandi lynching[edit]

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

Tragic as this may be, it did not receive much coverage except in a few newspapers. As there was no lasting coverage of this single event, it should not be given a separate article on wikipedia. Elektricity (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of WP:SUSTAINED coverage outside of newspapers. e.g. - [39][40][41] ~~[42]~~[43][44].Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that one of those links is a self-published book, another is an advocacy group and by no means long after the event, and some of the others are passing mentions which wouldn't satisfy WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the self-published book. Regarding the sources above - this published in 2015 and this published in 2012 - show WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING beyond news (e.g. reporting on the trial and subsequent acuittal).Icewhiz (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read [45][46], there is lasting coverage. Article needs to be updated and provide the reason behind the incident. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was more convinced by D4iNa4 sources since they are more than namedrops. Usually, I wouldn't be convinced by the routine aftermath of a trial but there are more sources like this that offer in-depth analysis.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has recently been under discussion due to being a target of pov-editing. The talk page makes it clear that there is scope for improvement, although the title probably needs to be changed from the pov-y lynching to violence, which would then allow us to give the events the full coverage that they deserve, per sources such as those linked by Di4na4 above. - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG .Sitush you should have asked for references not wrongly raised questions POV pushing as it can given.Full report here.

http://rmponweb.org/upload/StudyReport/37420bhiwandi-riots-2006.pdf 42.111.200.183 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References provided by the D4iNa4 make the subject pass WP:LASTING. Pratyush (talk) 17:54, 19 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Barnett[edit]

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

Fails GNG, BLP, NPOV... edit: appears to be a personal bio, reads like a CV rather than encyclopedic.Angryredplanet (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI... I am a novice editor, just getting into the nuts and bolts of WP:xxx etc. I also am new to Twinkle, but, you know, be bold, right? My first AfD, sort of testing the waters. Found this page on ANI (I think creator got blocked), and it just doesn't belong. Angryredplanet (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Difficult to find sources due to name (shares name with secretary of Billie Jean King) but all the coverage I have found is purely local, thereby not fulfilling GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete. For her to succeed at that time leads me to believe there might be more notability than is yet showing up in the article. Possible additional sourcing includes https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=7395598&privcapId=4292241, https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/234857, https://www.corpmagazine.com/diversity-continues-to-grow-in-stature/ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is dead, so BLP (biography of living people) rules do not apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 18 January 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Railway Fan Club Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Existing sources are simply namechecks; WP:BEFORE revealed nothing better. John from Idegon (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nightfury 09:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not notable. Oldest railfan club in country and was founded in 2010! Ajf773 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough sourcing available to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 24 January 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. The conversation can continue on the talk page J04n(talk page) 20:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Kandel stabbing attack[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS article is mostly a collection of statements from various politicians with no indication of lasting impact SeraphWiki (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We're seeing wide WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE on the international scale - e.g. German prosecutors raise charge in teen's stabbing to murder, Business Insider, ‘Teen’ refugees threaten to scupper Angela Merkel, The Times from the past week. Event has WP:SIGCOV amply meeting WP:NCRIME, the sole question being perhaps WP:LASTING and continued coverage in the future - per WP:RAPID in such a situation the article should be kept. LASTING doesn't require a big BALL here, as several sources are describing this case as a possible policy changing trigger to Germany's asylum practices - but in any event per RAPID given the SUSTAINED coverage in wide, international, well regarded sources from the time of the event and until present - this should be kept.Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RAPID has been used a lot to keep these articles, and nothing has ever come of it. These articles are created at a low level without any indication of whether they would even be due for inclusion in an article about violence against women in Germany, or violence committed by refugees in Germany. There is no analysis at all and no indication of how they would fit into a higher level article because no sources have ever discussed these particular incidents. RAPID should not be used to keep these dead-end breaking news articles that have no hope of ever becoming neutral, balanced articles because they have a very narrow topic. Each one is basically a POV fork of the actual encyclopedic topic (in this case violence committed by refugees, or violence against women in Germany) where the main article would have to also include content about racism and other neutral content about domestic violence, etc. SeraphWiki (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this really, but there is a tremendous amount of violence against women in Germany - It has been the subject of publication after publication and we don't even have an article about Violence against women in Germany. That is embarrassing. Until clear guidelines are set these articles are going to keep proliferating. One particular crime being committed by a refugee from Afghanistan is so narrow that it would be WP:SYNTH to bring in the broader discussion, but the POV presented in the context of a one week news-cycle about the crime, largely based on rhetorical statements from politicians, is allowed to stand in these articles without any hope of ever balancing them. If there were policy changes, the higher level article would be written first and the relevant articles would be created as link development, but that is not what happens.SeraphWiki (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The incident occurred on 27 December 2017. Business insider (AP reprint) ran a story on 16 January - which would be 3 weeks later. You seem to mixing your personal opinion of whether such incidents should be notable - and actual coverage. We don't decided on notability based on editor opinion. We do decided based on coverage. RAPID is a valid argument for an in-the-news event receiving wide international coverage. If you want to claim lack of SUSTAINED - you'd be better off waiting six months or a year - and then taking out the AfD axe (claiming that while covered widely in the month of the incident - coverage has since....). Doing an AfD based on crystal-ball guesses of editors regarding future coverage - which is pointless - as pointed out by the WP:RAPID policy.Icewhiz (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, coverage in German, e.g. bild or RTL is on-going. This incident has political ramifications regarding asylum as well as an interesting legal question regarding the age of the alleged perpetrator - is an interesting legal issue (how do you determine the age, in the modern era with laws protected minors, of an individual with no documentation) as well as a policy issue (being a declared minor is advantageous in the asylum system).Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is not a discussion of whether a topic is notable. It is grounds for deletion of a topic that may satisfy WP:GNG. So you can strike your personal comments above. I do have some background knowledge on violent crimes against women, having studied the topic in several University and law school courses. No amount of wikilawyering around this changes it. I can't find a single similar news story about a white German man being violent. Maybe white German men just aren't violent, that could be true, I don't know because Germany doesn't even collect statistics based on ethnicity. This is why an encyclopedia should have a strong preference for secondary source academic analysis, writen by experts. News sources should really be used for basic non-controversial facts, not as a basis to really shape the content and tone of the encyclopedia on a large scale. It is creating a big mess that will have to be cleaned up down the line.SeraphWiki (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS not relevant - this is not a routine event and in any event has persisted across several news cycles covered via many different angles (which we, as an encyclopedia, should summarize). Perhaps the German and international media are wrong in their coverage priorities - that should be taken up with them and their readership. On Wikipedia we determine notability by WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS, which is present in this case, and not by editor opinion on the editorial policy of RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example here a US army sergeant decapitated his wife's lover's head and brought it to her but we don't seem to have an article about it. Nadav Sela killed his wife and two children in Israel but I can't find a Wikipedia article about it. It is partially the priorities of the media, but not entirely. This really needs to be made more precise at the policy-level. The NOTNEWS criteria are simply not clear enough about what is and is not a routine news event. SeraphWiki (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is quite clear. Per NOTNEWS: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia", and further expanded in WP:ROUTINE. A murder (in peace time in a normal country) is never routine. A murder that has political ramifications (e.g. [47]) - is far off from routine. A murder still might not be notable, and most murders are indeed not notable, it depends on whether there is WP:SIGCOV. The Nadav Sela case - probably would pass notability guidelines if someone created it (even though there are no political ramifications - it is a straight up horror story)- though it would be more difficult to defend at AfD (as there is less coverage than this AfD - which has become an international item - Sela is fairly widely covered - but it is limited to the national level (and is mostly non-English, though English coverage does exist).Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS is not a notability, it is an exclusion policy. You need to read WP:NN again. This decision about what is "routine" always comes down to what individual editors believe is notable. Nowhere in the policy does it say "murders are never routine" - are rapes routine? Is domestic violence routine? Is police brutality routine? Are military accidents routine? No, only editor's ex cathedra personal statements. WP:SIGCOV and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE are notability guidelines. The fact that editors routinely vote on this in AfDs without a basic understanding of what the WP:ISNOT policy actually is, is an issue. The language of WP:NN should probably be restated in the WP:ISNOT policy. This isn't to question anyones competence, I only recently learned this at AfC, many editors are just not aware that WP:ISNOT is not a notability guideline. SeraphWiki (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I am aware of the difference between notability and NOTNEWS and I put it up for nomination as NOTNEWS, so all the argument about notability is off-topic. SeraphWiki (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, this should be speedily kept, as claiming murders/attacks fall under NOTNEWS is contrary to the policy and community consensus regarding articles about murders/attacks.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a rough consensus about terrorist attacks, but this seems to have been run of the mill 'she left him, he killed her'. This is a very common type of crime. If we keep the article when the crime is committed by an Afghan refugee, I hope we will keep all of them, if someone takes the time to create the new article.SeraphWiki (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing continued coverage [48]. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suspect charged with murder; ongoing coverage; and Note that the suspect's age is being investigated. With similar cases, such as Killing of Alexandra Mezher, expert medical examinations determine that adult migrants have claimed status as "minors" to secure more favorable immigrant status; such findings do bring additional coverage/notability to this sort of crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't "ongoing coverage". There is a huge and voluminous body of scholarly literature about this that goes back decades, some of it specifically about Muslims. Here are some titles of recent academic papers:

Islamophobia: examining causal links between the media and “race hate” from “below”
Media, Racism and Islamophobia: The Representation of Islam and Muslims in the Media
The Changing Misrepresentation of Race and Crime on Network and Cable News

That's the kind of stuff we are supposed to write about. Serious encyclopedia stuff. Not echoing a particular array of crime news stories that have been linked to racial bias in academic publications for decades (most of it about blacks, now more recently about Muslims and Latinos as well). Crime reporting in particular has been such a subject of scrutiny that our policies advise us to steer clear of it unless it is about a wrongful accusation (At least when creating standalone articles about individuals). Naming the article 2017 stabbing attack does not fundamentally change what this article is. Despite the title, this article is exactly what we are not supposed to write under WP:PERP. This isn't benign.SeraphWiki (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the policy you cite and Note that, a.) article is named for the crime, not after the PERP; b.) German police have protected PERP's name with an alias (even though there is no doubt about the identity about this long-time boyfriend who stabbed a 15-year-old to death after she broke up with him.) also, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We are here only to determine whether this event meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for NOTNEWS, not NCRIME and am frankly tired of voting on these discussions on grounds other than what the article was nominated for. When dozens of articles are created about routine news reporting on the topic of crimes committed by minorities despite decades of widely accepted, highly cited, established published research that crime journalism has a racial bias, and those articles can't be linked to other articles on the topic because they aren't specifically discussed in any secondary source analysis, that is proliferating non-encyclopedic content on a significant scale, and it certainly triggers NOTNEWS and "routine" because it undermines Wikipedia's purpose of building an encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with NCRIME. SeraphWiki (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cautioning User:SeraphWiki, You have been editing for a long time, but perhaps you are unaware that it is against the rules to return to comments you have made in a discussion and alter them after the conversation has moved on, ~~as yo did here:~~ [49]. When making such changes you must clearly mark them, by ~~striking~~ and similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Since the diff you cited clearly shows that I refactored my comment before anyone had responded, I think you should strike the above accusation.SeraphWiki (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My error and my apology. I assumed that you were new to AfD because of your apparent unfamiliarity with the process. For example, you assert that: "I nominated it for"NOTNEWS, not NCRIME and am frankly tired of voting on these discussions on grounds other than what the article was nominated for."[50] And similar statements here: [51], and [52].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Why do those diffs make you believe I am unfamiliar with "the process"?SeraphWiki (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I refactored this statement The only thing that is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is when editors try to work around the majority view of WP:RS on a subject by proliferating non-encyclopedic articles about crimes committed by minorities. because after reading it, I thought it was too personal. If there had been any replies, I would have struck it. I don't think it is intentional, but I think that is the effect - so I tried to reword it to explain in a more neutral way - dozens of low-level standalone articles on routine crime reporting that about crimes (committed by minorities) without a clear parent don't have any place in the encyclopedia. This is a thing that is quantifiable, if we are creating a lot of content about routine crimes because crimes committed by minorities receive more media coverage then other types, then I think it is fair to say that these types of articles may not have encyclopedic value as standalone articles and may even inadvertently introduce bias. There is enough serious academic research about this that I think it should be taken seriously. The article itself is written in a news summary style. But I don't see how a diff of a comment that I have already struck (or removed under WP:TPG in this case) is relevant to this AfD. SeraphWiki (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN article has been upgraded, most notably with A Girl’s Killing Puts Germany’s Migration Policy on Trial in today's New York Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ongoing coverage. Many more sources can be found in the German article (see Interwiki links).--Greywin (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: SeraphWiki is correct in observing that by collecting and preserving articles like these, we WP editors are reinforcing the racial bias that our sources carry. Check out the NYT article linked above: "If the boy had been German, [...] we wouldn't be having this conversation". However, taking them to AfD is not a good strategy against this effect, and discussing lasting encyclopedic value in an AfD has never been a good use of time. --Pgallert (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're not reinforcing - we're merely following the sources - reflecting whatever selection of coverage may be there. Claims of bias should be addressed to the editors of the New York Times or Der Spiegel - and perhaps their readership who seem interested in such coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just that we have a lot more readership and influence than NYT or Spiegel. That gives us more responsibility, too. There is enough paperwork on WP with which we could avoid reflecting whatever selection of coverage may be there, if only we wanted to. --Pgallert (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not following the sources - we are supposed to follow reliable secondary sources - media reports are not reliable secondary sources for articles about crimes - there should be some secondary source somewhere that has at least mentioned this incident if it is notable and/or has encyclopedic value and it should have a parent article - what is the parent article for these? This has not been mentioned in so much as an academic footnote. This is basically all covered by WP:NEVENT - WP:DIVERSE, WP:SENSATION, WP:PERSISTENCE - If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance. - it should be at least cited, somewhere, outside the news to be notable. This is not a very high standard as most crime related academiclaw articles are copiously cited, and include hundreds of crimes that have never been mentioned the press. If it has never been cited, it is probably non-notable for an encyclopedia.SeraphWiki (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - National and international coverage (such as in The New York Times). A high-profile killing which sparked a wider debate with concerns expressed by a number of senior politicians. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the relevant notability policies though (since NEVENT and NOTNEWS are often discussed at the same AfD):

WP:DIVERSE A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article...Similarly, where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability (see Wikipedia:Bombardment). Derivative reports and reports under common control cannot be used to verify each other, nor does mere repetition necessarily show the kind of effort that is good evidence of a significant matter.
- Right now five of the references in the article are to one paper Die Welt. Two are to Frankfurter Allgemeine. One is to a DW opinion piece. The NY Times article has been cited five times, but none of the substantive context has been added like "Half of that increase is due to the fact that crimes involving migrants are twice as likely to be reported, the authors of the study said...violent crime, including murder and rape, remains well below its 2007 peak." The local.de source only repeats what is in other sources. I can improve this based on the NYTimes source, which was added as a reference after the nomination. Looking at how the more recently added sources have been used I am starting to think this may be more a behavioral issue, and not within the scope of AfD.
WP:SENSATION Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability.
WP:BREAKING - It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable.
- Right now this article is linked to Kandel for which it is most likely undue and Immigration and crime in Germany - which leaves no doubt that the parent topic is about immigrants and crime, (Parent Category:Correlates of crime. I am willing to withdraw the nomination and attempt to improve the article and discuss merging into the (short) parent article.
WP:PERSISTENCE Which I quoted above.

SeraphWiki (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We keep articles on individual crimes that garner sufficient attention in reliable, independent sources to pass WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG. You might want to look at AfDs on crimes that are in some ways similar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Paros (Greece) rape, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palagonia double homicide. While it is true that some crimes/criminals Shooting of Kathryn Steinle, Edwin Ramos, Pablo Antonio Serrano-Vitorino,) draw intense attention from WP:RS because the perpetrator is an illegal immigrant, the question at AfD is not why attention was drawn, but does sourcing suffice to establish notability. On your "merge" proposal. When a CRIME is notable, we keep it, even though articles on broader phenomena of which is is part exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've already stated your position. There is no need to repeat your position in a way that does not address any of the policy language that I highlighted, after a nomination has been withdrawn, or to argue against a merger that has not even been proposed yet. I've checked some of the AfDs you linked and I see one repeat participant who has been CheckUser blocked. Maybe, as other editors have pointed out, it was a mistake to nominate it as NOTNEWS, but the notability question can't be fully resolved until the initial coverage has died down, per WP:NEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.SeraphWiki (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact: you did not withdraw. You offered to withdraw on conditions that included a proposed merger. to which I made a policy-based response.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 24 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oladeji Olatunji[edit]

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

Not sure why this was accepted as it was created by a known sock (upe, etc...) and was previously AFD'd and merged to his older brother. I see no evidence at this point that there is significant enough coverage to warrant an actual article and there is little to no change in those sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't really see much significant coverage. Most of the sources look to be mostly unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KSI (entertainer). Encyclopaedic content (ie the Awards section) can easily fit within a section of the KSI article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little confused, 1292simon. That's about his brother. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge per 1292simon.--Rpclod (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)~~Delete per Chrissymad.--Rpclod (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rpclod, 1292simon Again, I ask, why? That article is about his brother, not him. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Hi Chrissymad. The merge suggestion was an attempt to salvage something out of the article. However, I can see the arguments for deleting, and think that is also an acceptable outcome. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not merge, do not redirect. Redirecting a BLP to a BLP is idiotic and dangerous, and is one of the absolute worst habits we have on Wikipedia. Merging would all but require we keep a redirect to sustain the history for attribution. If there is anything worth including in the brother article, it likely doesn't need a merge. Re: why this should be deleted? It was created by a UPE sock farm to promote the man. It should have been G5'd a year ago. No need to even look at notability. The content and the history is actively harmful to Wikipedia, and preserving it would go against everything in our core policies: we do not create potential BLP violations (redirecting a BLP to a BLP), and we do not store advertising in histories for people to come along and just reuse. Delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accepted it at WP:AFC and copyedited it, because he has 8.7 million followers, which is much more than the 250k notabilty number. How do you check if it has been created by known sock? If it is dodgy, it goes. scope_creep (talk)
Delete and Salt with no redirect. scope_creep (talk) 14:20, 19 January 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 per CSD G11. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Episode-Choose Your Story[edit]

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

References to either simple reviews, non-notable sources, or to subject's own site. Authored by an SPA who was asked to disclose his COI, but has yet to do so. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:18, 17 January 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. Sandstein 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of engineering institutes affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and not a notable list - just a simple long list of schools with some kind of affiliation. Proposed deletion but removed as a possible merge except there isn't really a great deal of content to salvage. Ajf773 (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this list provides no encyclopedic value.--Rpclod (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR and also constitutes WP:PLAGFORM. MT Train^Discuss 07:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:40, 18 January 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. Sandstein 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CJA (band)[edit]

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

No notability asserted. The awards stated are not major awards like the Grammys, so they are not a valid assertation. Band did a lot of very minor things, and no coverage was found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how this meets WP:BAND criteria. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.--Rpclod (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest they meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG requirements. Mattg82 (talk)
Delete - searches did not turn up enough sourcing to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't meet WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:17, 24 January 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. Sandstein 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Beats[edit]

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

No sources can be found to establish WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Non-notable record label with non-notable artists in their history. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. What coverage exists is press releases or mere mentions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons in main AfD and above. Sourcing from Reddit/Facebook/Soundcloud (where the majority of the references are from) doesn't confer notability. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 02:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no authoritative references are given to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anyone knowledgeable about electronic music will understand why Wolf Beats deserves its own page. They tend to stay in the background so there are few sources, but as an avid electronic music enthusiast I can confirm that it is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.11.246 (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide valid evidence of notability, preferably reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. See WP:GNG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although several of the artists have blue links, all but one of them re-direct back towards the label's page. Single notable act (and it seems barely notable) is under the management company, and gets a brief, brief mention. [53] is the only independent source I could find. I have no idea regarding its reliability. Even if highly reliable, I don't think this is a notable record label, as there is no significant roster of notable artists, nor does it meet WP:GNG, nor does any source claim the label has otherwise had a significant impact on the development or history of a genre or regional musical culture. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth sourcing to show that it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 24 January 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. Sandstein 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Soulstice[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, WP:GNG. A typical college event with little or no impact beyond its boundaries. (I would have A7'ed it if not for the celebrity judges.) A verbatim search (to eliminate results with "solstice") for soulstice ("uc irvine" OR "university of california irvine" or uci) yields few hits with no substantial, independent coverage. The few sources provided or yielded by Google are social media or university-connected publications, except for the MTv item, which was really about two child stars running into each other at this event, rather than being about the event. Largoplazo (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 01:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable event lacking detailed coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant independent authoritative references given to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Student activities and traditions at UC Irvine, where it should have been created to start with. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. References are not independent and reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 14:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Jack N. Stock ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re merging Soulstice is already mentioned at Student activities and traditions at UC Irvine. Merging, if that implies pouring all of this detail into that page, is overkill, as that would result in this one event out of many to receive disproportionate attention in the context of that article. It wouldn't hurt to add some detail to that article, but that's true independently of the outcome of this discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. SeraphWiki (talk) 05:09, 18 January 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. There's a consensus here for speedy deletion under G11: one direct request, and two additional ones saying they support it. That, along with the content of the article, is enough for me to be fine with deleting it under G11. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OFF3R[edit]

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

References point to niche non-notable blogs and press releases. A quick news search showed passing mentions at best. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an advertisement, makes me feel like it fails WP:PROMOTION as well as the GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 01:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (per G11) - subject appears to be somewhat covered in some sources so I'm unsure about GNG ([54]) but even then it would require a "fundamental rewrite" and a clean start would be the best option. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but would support speedy delete). This is a corporate brochure citing press releases.--Rpclod (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Rpclod SeraphWiki (talk) 03:00, 17 January 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.

[1] ttp://www.candymaaka.com/press.html

[Home_1940-2] "International Academy of Trial Lawyers". Home. January 10, 1940. Retrieved January 10, 2018.

[3] Weidenbaum, Murray; Hughes, Samuel (1996). The Bamboo Network. New York: Free Press. p. 137. ISBN 9780684822891.

[4] Torr, James D. (2005). The Patriot Act. San Diego, Calif.: Lucent Books. p. 47. ISBN 9781590187746.

[LindRankin2015-5] Nancy S. Lind; Erik T. Rankin (2015). Privacy in the Digital Age: 21st-Century Challenges to the Fourth Amendment. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-2971-0.

[6] Friedman, Lauri S. (2006). The Patriot Act. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. p. 30. ISBN 9780737735253.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]