Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 June	14 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of plot twists[edit]

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

Fails WP: Not and WP: Notability; it's just a list of trivia. Even with some substantial edits, I don't see this page having the potential to be an article appropriate for Wikipedia. Epass (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Epass (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: An absurd collation of spite. Someone wanted to put every spoiler possible in one place. 1) It's not a list of plot twists. 2) It isn't a list of all plot twists in any medium, much less all media. 3) It's random. 4) It's POV. It's simply childish. ("She's my daughter. My sister! My daughter! My sister!") Hithladaeus (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Amplification: I just want to explain a bit. Plot is a specific thing in fiction. It is the connection of actions -- imagine a diagram of action points, and that's the plot. Almost everything on this list was not a "twist," but a reversal or reveal. Plot twists include things like Humphry Clinker being the son of Matt. Bramble, even though it's comic and doesn't reverse the novel. A twist includes Squire Allworthy's daughter having a son (Tom Jones). The sloppiness of the framing bothered me because it showed the actual intent of the list, in my view: "list joy for spoilers." Hithladaeus (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I like the idea of a list like this it also has a lot of issues. One of the first issues is that this would be forever incomplete and even if there were teams of dedicated people on the page it would still be incomplete. The second issue is that this has the potential to very, very easily become extremely unwieldy. As it is now I can easily point out that this list only contains plot twists for specific English language creations and even then only for very specific types. If we were to count in the films, books, games, TV shows, radio broadcasts, and so on, this list could easily contain hundreds upon thousands of entries. Now that's not even taking into consideration what the minimum criteria for inclusion would be and how subjective the list could become. Really all the list would need is 1-2 reviews that called a twist surprising/shocking in order for something to be included. Not only would the bar for this be considered pretty low, but you also have to figure that inclusion of the list would be highly dependent upon what one person considers to be a surprising plot twist. I'm sure that there could be some consensus with certain plot twists (like the reveal in the film Psycho), but ultimately inclusion in this list would just be a little too indiscriminate and it'd always be an eternally incomplete, exhausting list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any meaningful content can be included into Plot twist (without the need of simply starting a list within that article. And no mention of the greatest plot-twist in TV? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Examples such as those of Remember Me while cutting out other memorable things like The Crying Game and a bunch of other movies seem just disparate and unfocused. Almost every work of media has a plot twist and having them all in one article seems something more appropriate for TVTropes than here. Nate • (chatter) 09:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epass, Hithladaeus, Tokyogirl79, Lugnuts, and Mrschimpf, note that this AFD has been moved as it was not the 2nd nomination under this title. Please adjust your watchlist accordingly. postdlf (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like listcruft. --Anar chyte 22:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spiteful / silly/ list for list's sake and can quickly grow unwieldy. Stands to reason that plot twists would find their way into the articles about the works themselves anyway. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 02:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Model View Culture[edit]

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

Prod removed several months ago by claims of notabiliy. However, still fails WP:GNG; does not have in-depth coverage in WP:RS. While it has passing mentions in articles, all the in-depth coverage is of the blog's creator Shanley Kane and her abusive tirades, her relaionship with weev, and the drama with the other person leaving. Article creator is currently banned for abusive/disruptive behavior that is frankly similar to what Kane has been reported to do. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more of a promotion piece than information. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There do seem to be a good number of mediocre sources about it, and it's mentioned in lots of major publications (a brief mention doesn't help satisfy GNG but is worth considering when talking about the notability of a publication in particular since being cited is in large part what makes it notable). Still, it's probably not quite enough. It does, however, look like Kane may be notable and this would be worth a section in an article about her? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. cagliost (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage to demonstate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Yash! ^(Y) 07:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Female foeticide in India[edit]

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

(update - *Speedy Keep; legal definition clash) Abortion is not legally considered foeticide in most countries. Moreover, the sources used are unrelated to the topic of abortion. The article that can be kept for the topic is Female infanticide in India. Foeticide and abortion are not the same thing, neither legally nor etymologically, as is widely stated inside the article. --92slim (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. --92slim (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy keep - nom is POV pushing. Foeticide/feticide is the act of killing a fetus. Whether or not abortion is legally considered foeticide is not relevant. This topic is highly notable and has been widely covered; India's Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 made it illegal to disclose a fetus' gender for no other reason except to try to prevent people from having abortions (which are otherwise legal) because scans indicate child is female. Secondly, abortion up to 20 weeks is legal; abortion afterwards is not. I saw a documentary on this topic and they discussed later abortions and women causing themselves to go into premature labor as a way to abort. So even if you want to argue abortion is not illegal, post 20-week abortions are, and would be considered feticide and punishable as such. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of "foeticide" is unrelated to sex-selective abortion, thus the legal argument is mentioned for comparison. The legality of abortion in India per se is completely irrelevant. --92slim (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the legality of abortion is completely irrelevant, so I don't know why you brought it up. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is unrelated to foeticide. Please read the argument carefully. For example, the article starts with "Female foeticide is the act of aborting a foetus because it is female." That is completely wrong, legally speaking. Foeticide and abortion are definitely not the same thing. --92slim (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the argument in which you claimed "Abortion is not legally considered foeticide in most countries" but supplied no documentation/references to support this applies to India, nor any real point? Applause for that argument. If you have an issue with that first sentence then bring it up on the talk page or ask for additional citations. It's not a valid reason to propose deletion of the entire article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feticide is definitely not the same thing as abortion. You should cite a source that claims otherwise, not me; this is both an etymological and legal definition at stake, so the article needs to be rewritten; as such, a deletion is warranted. Furthermore, abortion is legal in India so I don't understand how is that even important. I will repeat it for you: Abortion is not legally considered feticide in most countries. Legally speaking, feticide can only occur if the fetus was viable. Sorry to burst your bubble. --92slim (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just to be super helpful I took six seconds and chnaged it so it does not say abortion in the lede. I'm not sure why you couldn't do that yourself. Naturally you will now withdraw this AfD as that was your concern. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. For example, the article contains sections titled like this: "High sex ratio implies female foeticide" or "High human sex ratio may be natural". This is blatant POV - correlation does not imply causation. Do I have to "correct" the whole article? Come on. It's much easier to rewrite it. --92slim (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read those sections? Or just the section headers? PS I just changed the section headers! Yay for the edit tab! And these "corrections" were wholly unacceptable as to be disruptive - not only did you completely skew the lede to suit your POV, but you removed large sections of information that broke the references. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, your revert is unnacceptable. I only removed text mentioned 3 times in the lede and fixed the references. I think you don't really know what POV means. Please, keep your attitude in check while discussing articles. --92slim (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue this circus I will take it up at ANI. You've been warned twice on your talk page and on here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What circus? You're pushing so-called pro-life POV here. --92slim (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please see this related ANI involving nominator's behavior and edits to this article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you discuss the deletion instead of discussing behaviour. --92slim (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm the last person who has a "pro-life" POV!!!!!! —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nominator hasn't provided a deletion rationale, subject is clearly notable. If there is a content dispute or a proposed rename, the nominator should discuss it on the talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, you must have selectively ignored what I have wrote. --92slim (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article should only be kept if there are wikilinks to sex-selective abortion and female infanticide in India in the opening sentence of the lead section - the sex ratios in Indian children are the product of both abortion and foeticide - and the further issue is female infanticide. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who understands. Abortion and feticide are legally different things. --92slim (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem if those links are in the lede, so long as new definitions are not introduced. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The legal definition of female foeticide is set forth clearly by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, GoI [1] and codified by the Supreme Court of India through various judgements including this. That it may or may not match with "most countries" is irrelevant. The subject is "Female foeticide in India". If there's any problem with specific content or sources, that belongs on the talk page, not at AfD. —SpacemanSpiff 06:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 06:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yay SpacemanSpiff! Thanks for looking those up. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: The definition is not here or here. Can you find other sources? Btw, "most countries" is relevant. --92slim (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought this was a naive nomination, now I'm beginning to realize it's pointless. —SpacemanSpiff 06:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That's why there is this ANI, where I've copied/pasted the definition as stated by the Indian government to point it out to nominator. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: Not really. The US definition of feticide (as explained) is diametrically opposed to the Indian Gov. of Health PDF handbook that you have provided; which, btw, doesn't have a proper search and indexing. Sorry for the misunderstanding; it's rather exhausting to deal with the above user for obvious reasons. --92slim (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude it's at the top of the second page of text! How could you not find it? And it's not "diametrically opposed" but is the same definition as others besides myself have pointed out. Oh so many lulz in this AfD. Thanks for lettin a sister roll. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert in Indian law and didn't notice it. Please refrain from being vindictive from now on, "dude". PD. No, it's not the same definition. But you don't care so it's ok, LOL. --92slim (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Needed some touchups which "someone" has unfortunately made more difficult by causing disruption, but is clearly relevant for its statistical and cultural relations. It is a shame when a user's (again, no names) POV gets in the way of an important article such as this, that time needs to be spent on this, rather than on expanding the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, go away now. --92slim (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, don't think so, you don't tell me what to do. Very disrespectful, no wonder there is an AN/I about you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yes I do because this deletion article is obsolete. Bye. --92slim (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You actually did not officially close it, just by commenting you did so. It's ok, any special user such as yourself can make that mistake.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bye? --92slim (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This topic has been widely discussed; handily meets WP:GNG. Looks like we have a POV pusher trying to delete it. Binksternet (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not nominated anymore. --92slim (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not nominated anymore. --92slim (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Redirect to The Matrix (franchise)#DVD releases. --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Matrix Collection[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate any notability to the wider world, and seems to be pure advertising. It has been noted on the article's talk page in 2012 that the article "seems to come straight from Amazon", and I agree with this assessment. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I've completed the nomination on behalf of the above IP. For my own part, I didn't find any separate notability for this particular set. --Finngall ^talk 22:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Any useful info can be merged to The Matrix (franchise)#DVD releases where this is already mentioned. A redir would keep the history if anyhtign is copied in such a way that attribution should be preserved. DES ^(talk) 22:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DESiegel: I can imagine the article being recreated by a fan if there isn't a redirect in place. This particular release carries the "Animatrix," I think. All relevant information can be handled in a single sentence in the parent article. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's extremely rare that a compilation set would become notable enough to merit its own article and normally this sort of thing is reserved for music albums since those can chart and show how it's independently notable. Movie sets rarely meet this criteria because ultimately there's rarely ever enough to truly warrant its own article. There are some reviews here and there like these reviews from DVD Talk, DVD Verdict and EW, but so far I'm not entirely seeing a great argument for where this would warrant its own entry. The strongest argument I can think of is that it'd be easier to list all of the features on an individual page, but keeping an article just so we can have a DVD extra listing isn't really a good reason for inclusion. I'll see what else I can find, but offhand I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding some mention of the set in academic sources, but largely because it was used as a source for academics to discuss the film series as a whole rather than the specific set. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That sounds as if it has become the critical text for scholars. In literature (and film studies is often a subset of literature in the US), academic practice is to rely upon a particular "critical edition" for all references to primary text. It doesn't exactly make the edition notable, quite. Some of the standard critical editions of some works definitely are notable achievements, but probably not to a broad audience (e.g. I doubt the wide world would care that Guthkelch and D. Nichol Smith's edition of one of Swift's early works for Oxford is still the critical edition or applaud the things it did). Hithladaeus (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words it'd be something that would be interesting to mention in the release section for the film series but not really something that would merit its own article? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per DESiegel. There is nothing supporting the notability of this specific set that could not be discussed there. bd2412 T 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DjHypnotize[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ with my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) finding absolutely nothing aside from a YouTube link at Google News. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet criteria at WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable GNG, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faversham House Group[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable company. A search for sources threw up a few passing mentions, but that's it Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete - as my searches found no good coverage aside from one interview, business listings and Thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically all original research with a couple typical promotion/COI-type sections sprinkled in on awards and philanthropy. Even if they were notable, it would be best for any editor trying to make an encyclopedic work to start from scratch. CorporateM (Talk) 00:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

60 footed[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. PRODed under the same rationale, PROD removed by IP. I can find almost no uses of this term at all in the wild, and zero reliable sources using or discussing it. Kolbasz (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Strong delete as neologism, fad argot. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if there are sources, it's a dictionary definition. It could be a useful statement within an article about drag racing or street racing, but not a basis for its own article. Aspirex (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable neologism. No references at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others, does not warrant its own article. Citobun (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North British Locomotives Pioneer Diesel Build[edit]

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

Non-notable project. No signs of any coverage of this project outside of its own website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not really notable as of yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyyouoverthere (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability and these are three separate projects anyway, as far as I can tell. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vitenas[edit]

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

BLP article about a plastic surgeon and businessman. Lead includes a direct link to his business (cosmetic surgery practice). Claim for notablity is for writing several books on plastic surgery which is only sourced with a link to the subjets web site, not to a publishing source. Second claim is for inventing surgical plates and screws which is linked to the article about another (notable) surgeon, the claim itself is unsourced. The article reads like an advertisement for his surgery practice with questionable (self)sources. Awards are from a local webzine (H Texas). Per WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ADMASK. Ben Ben (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Lord Subro gets paid to create these articles. The subject doesn't look notable to me (judging by the current references) and it's written like an advert. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are spam links in the article, which is a major violation, so, even if the usual, impassioned defenders come along and move "snow keep," a nowiki tag needs adding several places. From the article, it appears that Dr. Vitenas worked for the "father of craniofacial" plastic surgery, which would account for the "invention" of several plates and screws (i.e. they were done for the other guy, under direction). The claims therefore boil down to a highly profitable cosmetic surgery center and recognition as a person who empowers self-image, locally. That doesn't pass the GN. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is more spam than content Heyyouoverthere (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lead of the article was changed today by a single purpose IP: [2] — Ben Ben ^(talk) 19:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rank (formation)[edit]

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

Just a word definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Keep The pages in question are stubs, not dictionary-style entries. The essential differences in style between these and the common confusion between them are explained in detail at WP:DICDEF. There's plenty more that can be written about these concepts by reference to sources such as Elements of Military Art and History or Military Tactics. Andrew D. (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is this not enfilade? "Rank" is simply half of "rank and file." It is like "X and Y," while "file" can refer to a particular tactic. This seems incorrect, and the lack of references is troubling, because it would be easy to find a dictionary that would define rank and assume it as a clipping of "rank and file." Hithladaeus (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a rank and a file denote two different things. When troops are lined up, the front rank is the line of troops standing shoulder to shoulder, a file refers to troops lined up one behind the other. It is not just a word definition, it is just a stub of an article relating to a military formation. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. They both denote different things. They're not just a dictionary definition, just a short stub about a military concept. I've recently found five sources that talk about the file.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a surprisingly huge literature on the different ways of structuring bodies of military personnel in the pre-modern war era, and so there should be plenty of scope to expand these articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nick-D and Tomandjerry211 there would appear to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gameknight999 (character)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable character in a book, fails WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 12:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have added Crafter (character) to this AFD. It is another character from the same book that also fails GNG. -- GB fan 14:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as there is no evidence these characters are notable. -- GB fan 14:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy if possible (A7?) - Unremarkable characters from an unremarkable book. The thing is, the "book" appears to be fanfiction(?) about Minecraft. If this could be speedied, it should be done so. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 does not apply to fictional characters and no other speedy deletion criterion applies either, so they are not speedy deletable. -- GB fan 17:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book series is very popular and is available in stores,so the article is still a little good--Minedigger (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Character from a book not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Ok I give up--Minedigger (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per the comment above this one I have tagged both articles for speedy deletion under G7. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A11, Obviously invented. I'd originally closed this as G7 per the other AfD, but that wasn't meant to cover this character. However as this is something that was made up one day by the article's creator (this appears to be fanfiction), this would be covered by A11. I can re-open this if anyone wants, but I doubt that it would end any other way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herobrine (Gameknight999)[edit]

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

Non-notable character in a book, fails WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 12:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to add things about books on Wikipedia--Minedigger (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the other ones, no evidence they're notable. Some advice, I'd work on getting the book articles up to scratch, you need to add some more reliable sources about them. It's basically impossible to convince people that characters in a book series are notable if none of the books have a Wikipedia article. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by JohnCD –Davey2010^Talk 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anant pande[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG: only 2 citations, thus failing WP:PROF#C1; it's very unlikely that other WP:PROF criteria are met. Also fails WP:GNG; there is very little coverage on the subject. Esquivalience ^t 12:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Bbb23 –Davey2010^Talk 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got To Dance (Germany TV series)[edit]

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

Page features absolutely zero sources and was created by a suspected sock-puppet account who has been evading their block for six months. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 12:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-direct to Got to Dance. No notability shown.--Rpclod (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dixlow[edit]

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

The subject of this article is not notable; article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article talks about the artist substantially. The artist has not gained coverage in any reliable source to warrant a stand alone article or even be mentioned in Wikipedia. Versace1608 (Talk) 11:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches immediately showed no third-party coverage and there's nothing to suggest he's notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:-Obviously fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soulspazm[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Most of the current bombardment of sources just verify they were the releasing label for an album. The only exception is a press release. There are none that give the company any depth of independent coverage. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Drew, the company's manager, is also nominated for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- it seems the article exists as an attempt at self-promotion and the prime contributor clearly has a a WP:COI in doing so. I too could not find any evidence of serious notability TF92 (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References/sources are all "this happened" and "that guy was there," but none are about the digital distributor/record label per se. This is aside from whether the sources can be considered reliable and independent. Given the fact that the label is in the business of increasing its online profile, the promotional nature of the article hurts assumptions of good faith. Fails music/corporation notability guidelines. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found results here and here but nothing significant and in-depth about this and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet either of the relevant notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick VanderLaan[edit]

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

Not WP:NBASKETBALL?. Article looks impressive but on closer inspection you can see the issues. VanderLaan has not played at the top level. He was not selected in the NBA Draft. In the USA he was in the NBA Development League, NBA Summer League, American Basketball Association (2000–present) and Continental Basketball Association, not making it to the National Basketball League (United States). He did lead a stat in the 2006 CBA but this was in the short lived revival period. Is that good enough? It might meet the letter of WP:NBASKETBALL but this was after CBA had lost much of it's significance. In Spain, the article claims he played in Bàsquet Manresa who play in Spains top tier, Liga ACB. Records show he played for Ricoh Manresa (same team, 2nd tier) in the second tier Liga Española de Baloncesto as a bench player[3]. (He did appear in the first game of seven of the LEB Finals [4]). duffbeerforme (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant sources to pass GNG even if it may not pass the more narrowly defined NBASKETBALL. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether he strictly meets WP:NBASKETBALL or not, he seems to fail GNG. Most of the sources listed are not independent of the subject, a key factor in GNG. The information comes mostly from his teams' or leagues' websites and his company's own website for the gold business. The only outside coverage is a few articles in the local paper from his time at Concordia. If there's not significant, independent coverage from his time at Cal, Virginia, or in the pros, I don't see him meeting GNG. If a few articles in a single county newspaper are enough for GNG, it would mean that just about every all-county level high school athlete ever would have enough material to meet GNG. SCMatt33 (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NHOOPS criteria. Collection of general college and minor league roster references is not sufficient for WP:GNG,--Rpclod (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A majority of participants are of the view that this event is sufficiently significant to warrant an article. Sandstein 11:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Texas pool party incident[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, WP:WI1E, WP:BLP1E for the officer, and WP:NOTNEWS. GregJackP Boomer! 07:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - seems like a way of restoring the quickly deleted article on the officer who resigned. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-referenced article on topic with significant continued coverage by multiple independent sources. Vipul (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a news event not a notable event. The DPD shooting of James Harper in 2012 received far more media attention and protester involvement at the time. So far the Dallas media has moved on to other things in Dallas than the pool party. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An ongoing event. Officer Casebolt resigned, and it seems as if the department is reacting relatively well. There is no "thing" to describe yet, because it isn't over. If it is over, then it is a sad, disturbing, and too common incident of overuse of police force that blends into the many others. Fails notability, plus Wikipedia is not the evening news. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the big one for me here is WP:EFFECT. Thus far, there is no indication that this event will meet a 10 year test, or even a two month test for that matter. The WP:BLP issues related to the case are also significant. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per everyone else. Everything is already starting to cool down and there's no indication this event will come back as a common reference. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting this criterion from WP:NEVENT: "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for a little longer. As much as these may be not uncommon (very much depending on definition), episodes like these seem to trigger new ones (as they have done in the past) and could potentially spark an even more serious event in the near future. If that were to occur, it is useful to be able to refer back to content like this. It's too early to call off as a single isolated event (particularly with the media coverage and spread it received) and to say it has no effect or notability. That could be done in a few months. It's a decent and objective page as it stands in the meantime. From WP Notability: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." and also states "Don't rush to delete articles". Global aviator (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a part of the ongoing saga of how White people react when Black people use their pool.[5] It should be kept as a data point in American race relations. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Kendrick7^talk 03:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge, redirect or move - This incident is already discussed briefly at McKinney, Texas. The article has multiple reliable references, and for that reason, should be kept, merged/redirected to McKinney, Texas, or moved to McKinney Police Department (Texas). --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid rationale for deletion. "Single event" arguments (ONEEVENT, WI1E, BLP1E) only apply to articles that are biographies of a person, or perhaps articles about things that were involved in the event. By its nature "notable only for one event, so redirect to the article on the event" cannot apply to an article on the event itself. "No lasting effect" arguments (NOTNEWS, EFFECT, NEVENT) cannot, by their nature, automatically apply to articles on very recent events. In any event, the guidelines say "lasting effect" is a grounds for notability, not a mandatory requirement for notability, and that very recent events can be notable. In any event, I think this event is likely to receive lasting coverage. In any event, since this could be redirected/merged per Jax0677, it isn't eligible for deletion (WP:ATD). James500 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable in the long saga of racism and police violence in the United States. Received significant international coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with James500 that -1E guidelines does not apply to events. Plus, the latest reliable source I see from GNews search is merely 20 hours back (by The Guardian), suggesting the influx of RS attention is yet to be stale, and we cannot conclude definitively that this event has no lasting effect to be unfit for WP as of now. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I read through the article and it seems that it was a news event that blew up and then died down.It appeared on my news for a day or two and then disappeared. Is it truly notable? Will people remember it one or two or six months from now? A year from now? Or are people wanting to include it to forward their own agenda be it the hatred for police since a police officer was involved or racism and their wanting to include it as a "see I told you the police hate black people" of which seems to be the norm is many a news story these days. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:EFFECT. The only lasting effect of this incident is that a police officer and high school principal are no longer employed. The news cycle has already died down and is mostly focusing on decreasingly interesting reactions to this event. One of the keep votes above makes the fine point that this should be "kept as a data point in American race relations." I couldn't agree more. It's a data point in a much larger story. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're agreeing with me, but not really? Sorry, but this is really a thing in American culture, see: Wiltse, Jeff (June 10, 2015). "America's swimming pools have a long, sad, racist history: They've long been contested spaces where we express prejudices that otherwise remain unspoken". Washington Post. This is indeed part of a WP:LASTING trend. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's part of a WP:LASTING trend. Being "part of a lasting trend" does not equate to "having a lasting effect." If this incident were the driving force behind that particular trend forever changing, that would be one thing, but being merely "part of" a lasting trend is, in my opinion, actually an argument against notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kendrick7, I see what you are saying but I've been watching and documenting the TV news here in Dallas and they haven't even mentioned the pool event in a few days. But I don't think you are concern with that but trying to promote it as an example of racism to further your own racism agenda. The racism claims of the pool party are in the air as the witnesses to it are friends of Tatiana Rhodes as well as the ones helping her with the event. It was not a sanctioned event by the HOA (reserving the pool) but even then the parties are limited to 20 people max. And that was something Tatiana did not care about due to her promoting the event all over social media, hiring a DJ and was using the event to sell tickets for another "Make it Clap" event. There is way more to the story than initially reported. Will the local news do a follow up to it, Channel 11 has tried but cannot get Tatiana side to it regarding the event or her "Make it Clap" business ventures. Seems she has gone into hiding. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, it's news to me that I have a "racism agenda". You seem to admit the subject is notable given that it has been widely discussed. So let's go on having that discussion, rather than one side trying to silence the other vie the AFD process, OK? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. Notable enough to make the news? Yes. Notable enough to rate an entry? Not really. What is the real lasting effect. Has it remained in the news on a constant basis? Not that I have seen and as I said I have been monitoring and logging the 4 news stations here in the DFW metroplex. Not everything that makes the news deserves a wikipedia entry. If you disagree then does that mean everything on the front page of the Plano Star Courier gets an entry? How about that bear cub found roaming that Corinth neighborhood. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The move to delete this article is political in nature. An editor first performed multiple edits, each with the effect of softening or minimizing what occurred. Then the same editor added a not-notable template. After some back-and-forth, the not-notable template was removed. Then the same editor again performed multiple edits (on the article he or she felt was not notable), each again moving the article in the direction of "nothing happened here." Why would someone persist in making substantive edits to an article he or she believed was not worth inclusion? I don't see how it makes sense to take both positions at the same time. "This article needs to be improved" -- "This article should not be in Wikipedia." The entire sequence of actions demonstrates a violation of the spirit (if not perhaps the letter) of NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dratman (talk • contribs)

WP:AGF, but whatever, right? Anyways, feel free to point out (on my talk page, not here were it is a distraction) what policy or guideline prevents someone from !voting to delete an article but still trying to keep it NPOV compliant. It is hardly surprising that the article started out a little sensationalistic, since several new editors/IPs were drawn to the subject after seeing the viral video. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...aand your argument in favor of keeping it is what, again? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with an eye towards an eventual merge: WP:NOTNEWS is the only one of the quoted policies that is potentially applicable. If this were an isolated incident, that potential would probably apply. As it stands, we've seen a remarkable number of related incidents in the last year and we will probably wind up having an article about that. When that article is created, this should be merged into it, but until then, there's no substantial reason to delete this one.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable due to continued national media coverage. Andrew Parodi (talk)
Comment - @Wikimandia:, @Heyyouoverthere:, @Hithladaeus:, @VQuakr:, @Libertarian12111971:, @Qwertyus:, @ThurstonHowell3rd:, @Ginsengbomb:; Assuming that this article should not be kept, why should it not be redirected or merged? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged or redirected to where? The article about the town? Article about pool safety? It's basically a news story; we don't redirect or merge those. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I always assume when an article is deleted, it gets turned into a redirect link or merged at best. That's why I just say delete instead of anything else. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletion and merger are not compatible outcomes for copyright reasons. We don't delete acceptable redirects (those that don't satisfy the deletion criteria in WP:R) unless the entire page history satisfies the criteria for revision deletion. See further WP:IGNORINGATD. James500 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Wikimandia, I don't see an appropriate redirect target. An article about racism or police violence in the US would seem to be the most appropriate, but only if the incident is connected to a trend in reliable sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pool safety sounds pretty good. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to already be due coverage at McKinney, Texas#Police department so a merge is unnecessary. The title is not a recognizable one, so a redirect is similarly unhelpful. I have no objection to a redirect if others feel one would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the "keep" rationale is that this is part of the backlash against public accommodations fairness, it would logically go under something related to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, that's not generally the actual rationale. It would therefore be better at integration, since the integration of public accommodations continues get get people (well, bigots) riled up. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK prevents 1964 Civil Rights Act being a credible target. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Actually, smaller cities in Texas have articles about their law enforcement departments, so the police department for this city could have their own article. Since McKinney, Texas talks about this, and redirects are cheap, we could also redirect to the section about the police department. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: the article on this particular police department was redirected after an AfD. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions at AfD in favour of, or against, mergers and redirections are not binding, because this is not "articles for merger" or "articles for redirection" (the correct forums are mainspace talk pages). The only binding outcomes are "delete" (which can be overturned at DRV, or, effectively, by recreation in an improved form) and "don't delete" (which can be overturned by another AfD). We can reconsider that merger/redirection here and now, if we are so inclined. James500 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the AfD decision, there could be a case made that the department has become more notable due to the coverage from this incident. I was more pointing out the existence of the previous discussion than implying that the decision was indelibly made. VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Assuming that McKinney Police Department (Texas) shall remain deleted, we can still redirect to McKinney, Texas. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for six months. The predictions that this event will disappear in importance are completely faith-based. Why not, you know, actually find out instead of relying on your crystal balls? --Calton | Talk 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there's a credible target to merge - most of the other issues with law enforcement in the US relate to killings (eg List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2015). Unless someone wants to create a page like "list of allegedly racist issues causing United States law enforcement officers to resign" then there seems to be no credible target. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but no objection to a merge/redirect to McKinney, Texas - as others have mentioned above. Neutrality^talk 03:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incidents where "white police officer kills unarmed black youth" are of course newsworthy and notable. But "white police officer forces unarmed black girl to lie on grass" suggests a slow news day. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Vipul, Kww, and Calton. Notable event that has gained wide international attention and generated much commentary. Opposers fail to convince me that article deletion improves the encyclopedia. Jus da fax 08:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a part of the ongoing saga of how Black people react to police. It should be deleted as non news in American race relations. --Malerooster (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nationwide coverage continues, rather than it fading out after a day as some editors' crystal balls told them it would do. See today's Google news coverage from numerous US states of the prosecutor's request that the Texas Rangers investigate the incident. The Dallas Morning News said today "Video of Casebolt’s role in breaking up the party in the Craig Ranch neighborhood flung McKinney into a national debate about race and police relations" This shows that the event had the required "impact." . Satisfies WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Is it nationwide coverage of the same released news story of the Rangers or nationwide coverage based on reporters around the nation converging on the area to report on it? I saw the tease of the Rangers doing the investigation but it was a 30 second blurb on one station and a bit longer on another station here in the DFW area. The longer one indicated it will look into the party itself and how it got out of control in addition to the officer's involvement. As for the debate on race and police relations. There has't been any real debate on it. Did they, the news stations, talk about race/police relations when it first made the news? Yes. Since then? Not at all. Edison: How is being treated on your local news? Can you document what they are doing on the article's talk page. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment Why do you find it necessary to tell us, in detail, what you see on your TV set?? I do not feel it is necessary to debate you or to defend what I said. When the world and national press see this as a telling instance of the relationship between police and Blacks in the US, then delete arguments which are basically "Move along, nothing to see here" are not compelling. Edison (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is sometime difficult to guess what will become a widely publicized and permanently notable event, but I do not think this is actually a borderline case, despite the relative lack of harm as compared to some others. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps merge it into a new category of 2015 pool fights? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Be careful what you wish for... BusterD (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Wish include a modeling career? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment That's supposed to be a retort? Resentment issues here... BusterD (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. You both might be letting your emotions cloud the issue. Especially since you both linked to the exact same Fairfield pool article albeit by different news agencies with the first by a local TV station. Perhaps this article needs to be merged into one about police interactions with the public. But since the original people involved in the incident have made it a career jumping off point, I'd like to see where it ends up at. Pool party, Dime Piece, Modelng? What next? ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And yet again your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Edison (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --TiberiasTiberias (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient ongoing coverage that it is likely not going away. Artw (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At least for a while. The recent arrest of the Charleston murderer resulted in another spate of coverage, comparing the treatment of the arrest of the white suspect in that case with the treatment of the black teen in this case. Others above have noted other forms of continuing media attention. It may become less important later, or because of the video coverage it may remain a "standard" example of the difference in police reactions to white vs. black youth. But until we know for sure, the article should remain. Darrah (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - What channel was that on? I wanna see. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks well-sourced and being actively discussed in the African American community. DimensionQualm (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's certainly a lot of coverage of the incident and there's a pretty good indication coverage will be lasting. No prejudice against renomination if somehow that doesn't happen. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident got international coverage and is still getting some coverage now, so I think it rises above the WP:NOTNEWS level. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Continues to receive national news coverage in the United States, indicating the topic being above and beyond the parameters set forth in WP:NOTNEWS, and likely to have enduring notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Sola[edit]

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

Apart from a single credit at allmusic, I can't find anything much to support notability. Fails WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 06:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 06:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His song is reviewed here. It may add weight. Mhhossein (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless I see more than one reliable source (which has only passing mention), I'd have to delete this person as failing WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some self-published albums does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. No reliable sources given, let alone any showing of other notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with the above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's worth mentioning this has existed since June 2005 when IPs could still start articles and it has basically stayed the same since with my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) finding nothing significant aside from this (one News) and this (a few Books). I would've suggested moving elsewhere but I'm not sure what the best target is. SwisterTwister talk 18:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tacito Augusto Farias[edit]

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

All references are either dead or do not support that this person is notable. Pishcal — ♣ 05:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing to meet the notability guideline for academics outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). An academic must be of a certain level of prestige but also scholarly achievement to their given field to warrant inclusion on this website. TF92 (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing suggests any academic notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His failure to appear in a listing of the top 25% of publishing economists in Brazil [6] is suggestive that he doesn't pass WP:PROF, and we have no evidence to the contrary. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PEOBASE[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Antigng (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 04:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antigng (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 05:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search reveals no references apart from LinkedIn, ie none that show that the company is notable. Pishcal — ♣ 05:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company's director has been invited as guest on a RTHK radio programme twice in 2014. And here are the links, 2014-07-30 U秀求職新鮮人 and 2014-08-06 U秀求職新鮮人 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.125.196.83 (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Notability cannot be inherited. WP:ORG:"An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. "--Antigng (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is the supporting organization of Tech X Social – Idea Generation Zone which organizaed by Microsoft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.125.196.83 (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Same IP address as prior "Keep" recommendation.--Rpclod (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one reference merely points to the subject's website; the other does not mention the subject. No indication that this company meets WP:ORGDEPTH criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tekxeon[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Antigng (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability per WP:ORG, google search revealed that the only reliable sources to be found were self published, ie linkedin. Pishcal — ♣ 06:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CSD#A7 applies, article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources given, much less any showing that WP:ORGDEPTH criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entry looks like something pulled from company literature. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, the article is unsourced and my searches at News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing in the slightest to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion is closed early because it is quickly becoming apparent that there is a strong consensus to keep the article, and that it seems impossible that a consensus to delete could result from this discussion. Sandstein 19:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dolezal[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E, this person is, outside of a single event, non-notable. The Interior (Talk) 05:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This person is listed among the notable Dolezals of the world on Wikipedia. You might notice that some of these notable Dolezals, even though listed, don't even have their own page! (that's why their names are in red) Have you proposed to eliminate those other Dolezals? XavierItzm (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but how would someone propose deletion of an article that doesn't exist? —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia has an extensive page on Rachel Dolezal. Would be interesting if a U.S.-person gets deleted on the English Wikipedia, yet the German version stays, as it probably will. I recommend the Rachel Dolezal page not be deleted XavierItzm (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The topic is discussed worldwide by now (e.g. in Poland), gives rise to numerous memes (e.g. "if somebody feels Transnegro, let them claim to be Transnegro"), and contributes to healthy discussions about race, truth and political corectness. Zezen (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree and recommend Keep. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wouln't go so far as to say that de.Wiki has an 'extensive' article becaues that would imply, within the context, that the article covers more than the English one, which it does not. It's probably true to say that based on these Wikipedia articles, she appears to be notable for one event only but a quick search reveals that there may be plenty of other reasons why she may just scrape through notability for en.Wiki.However, the burden is not on me to expand the article or provide additional sources. Perhaps Everymorning would care to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she's been in the local news for quite some time. It is entirely because she is a "public figure" that she got exposed as a fraud. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - She has been in the news since at least 2009. She is a public person. Agree with Мандичка. XavierItzm (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add something to this discussion, I would recommend that the article not be deleted for the following reasons:

1) Irrespective of Rachel's race or ethnicity, she has nevertheless done some work for civil rights, and that needs to be acknowledged;

2) We do not as yet have all the facts as to whether Rachel has engaged in deception. Whilst the parents' video is apparently strong evidence, it still isn't documented confirmation, and there is some sort of dispute between Rachel and the parents.

3) The definitions of "race" and "ethnicity" are being debated at the moment in all of social networking and media, and it is not a simplistic answer. Rachel may genuinely "feel closer" to the African Americans, and it is not unheard of for people to feel like they identify with a culture/ethnicity that differs from the family that raised them.

Just to be clear, I am actually playing devil's advocate here. I have a very low tolerance to public deception, but for the sake of the integrity of this page and Wikipedia, I think we need to act prudently before making any decisions regarding the edit/deletion of this page.

Snifferdogx (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the current controversy this person is involved in isn't about whether Johnny Otis identified with black culture, but whether Rachel Dolezal claimed to have black parents. Her (white) parents dispute this; there's no social-justice mushiness to be had. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a reference to where she specifically and explicitly stated that she had black parents? Snifferdogx (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snifferdogx, she claimed her real father was black and her stepfather was white. She posted photos on Facebook of herself with an older black man and said it was her father. (Article about him). The reporter in the interview showed her one of the photos she posted and said "Is this your father?" and she said yes. In this article here that she wrote, she also repeatedly refers to herself as being a black woman. She does not say "I am a black woman" but the entire article is about black women and as you can see, she keeps saying "we" and "our" to include herself. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Мандичка Cool, thank you! �Snifferdogx (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)�[reply]

Delete. Not only does this article violate WP:BLP1E - prior coverage was all localized and is only being reexamined in light of the present nonsense - but the present article is close to implying things about her previous hate crimes complaints that are not supported by reliable sources; e.g., that she made them up. That I myself believe this is likely doesn't make the article less of a problem; that's why there's a policy about people known only for one negative thing. Also note that having her article listed in one Wikipedia surname article does not make her more notable. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article does NOT violate WP:BLP1E, which states, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals." She is not a "low-profile individual." Please read what that means. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is now the poster girl for the term transracial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftw 420 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If we use the criterion "this person is, outside of a single event, non-notable" we also delete the page on Lee Harvey Oswald? Ewen (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald was the subject of a critical biography warning about the dangers posed by radicals training in the US military, several years before he shot Kennedy (yes, really). Also, of course, he is not remotely a currently living person. Different standards are diferent. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She has been in the news for several years, since at least 2009. She was also in the New York Times in 2010. I think this negates your argument. XavierItzm (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark David Chapman then. The specific example is not relevant to what I'm saying. Is the situation significant? Yes, I think so. It may die a death but the issue of 'transracial' individuals has been put on the map. Ewen (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the various arguments put forward by Мандичка. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 07:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedie Keep she's a borderline low-profile, but this isn't one event, so even if BLP1E does apply, WP:IAR would keep this due to the wider global societal issues. We can't even merge to transracial as a poster girl due to lacking self-identity. Widefox; talk 09:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into and re-direct to ~~Racial transformation (individual)~~Passing (racial identity). Subject is known only for short-term news coverage for this issue and does not have independent notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is she hasn't undergone a racial transformation. Did you mean Passing (racial identity)? -- haminoon (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I was returning to edit my response and noticed you were quicker than me. Need more coffee.--Rpclod (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was regionally notable for her artistry and civil rights work prior to the current national attention to her race. See this pre 2015 Google search for references. Her notability included being featured on a local magazine cover as a woman leader in the field of nonprofits. --Nowa (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rachel Dolezal search on google yields 2,200,000 hits. cnn, the guardian, washington post, nytimes, bbc, etc. Deleting it would be a new low in deletionist censorship. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because 1) she seems to be a well established activist for African Americans' rights with a several-year long track record as a public figure (at both the regional and local level, in the context of a fairly large city), and 2) because of an enormous amount of coverage of her in the media all over the world. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is in the news now because she already got in the news for apparently contentious allegations regarding her family life. Those generated news coverage first. However, they only got news coverage because she had attained notability in the Pacific Northwest, and they seemed shocking. So, even though she's definitely the flavor of the week for bloggers and talk radio, she had a good bit of stuff on her before the most recent revelations. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dolezal's story has sparked broader discussions around the issues of race and racial identity, including discussions around the means by which an individual identifies with a given community.Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rachel Dolezal is prominent in the black civil rights community of Spokane, WA/Northern Idaho. She is the president of a NAACP chapter. (The Spokesman-Review has called her "one of the Inland Northwest’s most prominent civil rights activists".)12.180.133.18 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — WP:BLP1E has 3 clearly defined criteria to be met if you want to use it to justify deletion, and this article fails all three: She was covered before this event, she is not likely to remain low profile outside this event, and her role in the one event is substantial. BLP1E is still deeply misunderstood. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While the 1E has certainly made her more nationally and internationally famous than she was three or four days ago, I'm not at all sure that it's the entire crux of her encyclopedic notability — I can certainly see the potential that she would have already qualified for an article before the firestorm hit. That said, the sourcing here is very disproportionately weighted toward stuff published within the past week — while I do see a couple of sources that predate the 1E, I don't see enough of them to suggest that she would have passed WP:GNG before this week. Which means that the article, as written, is not adequately demonstrating that she escapes WP:BLP1E, because the weight of sourcing is piled almost entirely onto the 1E. Accordingly, I'm willing to revisit this if enough older sources can be added to demonstrate that she was already garnering enough coverage to meet GNG before this week — but in its existing state, this is still written and sourced as a BLP1E. Delete unless a lot more older referencing shows up. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD deletion discussions are not about the article as written; they are only about how it could be written. How it is written and sourced is surmountable, a problem outside the scope of AfD. The fact that older sources exist is enoguh reason to keep. I count 34 news articles about the subject at HighBeam, all before the current controversy hit the news. The problem of getting those sources into the article is irrelevant to deletion; 'deletion is not cleanup'. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that without HighBeam access, I'm left with a 1980s-present database of Canadian newspapers (which, trust me, never wrote so much as a punctuation mark about her before this week), and a historical database of US newspapers that offers nothing published in the 2010s (and thus features no coverage of her either) — leaving me with no way to verify anything for myself except what's in the article as written. And at the time of my comment, people had simply asserted that older sourcing existed without actually showing any concrete proof of that. You're right that it doesn't all have to be in the article already — but editors still have to do more than just assert that such coverage exists, because that's a thing people can and do lie about. Which is why I left open the possibility of keeping it if someone provided some actual evidence of older sourcing — but I have to see concrete evidence that such sourcing does exist before I can factor it into my reasoning for anything. I still, for example, have no way of knowing how many of your 34 HighBeam hits are actually substantive coverage of her as a person, and how many really just provide a glancing namecheck of her existence (a type of hit which does not contribute to getting her over GNG). Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the points of the core principal WP:AGF is that when an editor asserts that they've verified a fact in a source, other editors are supposed to accept it. You don't simply say, "No, that's not online for me, so it doesn't count!" WP:OFFLINE is critical here: if we didn't rely on the vast quantity of sources that aren't online, at any price, the whole project would be badly biased in favor of recently-published sources, and sources associated with relatively high-tech archives. The number of books, periodicals and records nobody has digitized is staggering. And HighBeam isn't even offline; I got access through Wikipedia and you can too; it's there for the asking. Or you can request access and/or have someone check for you by proxy via Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. It is acceptable for editors to "simply assert" that sources exist. The burden then shifts back to those who would challenge the sources to do the footwork (which Wikipedia's resources make quite trivial) to re-verify if they still don't believe it. And we're not talking about extraordinary claims here: NAACP leaders are public figures, after all, and they are often at the center of news events, and academics do get published. If you won't do that footwork then you should accept the sources AGF, and not !vote delete. We can't delete articles based on the least-connected, poorest-library-access editor. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not acceptable for editors to simply assert that sources exist — whether they're added to the article or listed in the AFD discussion, the onus is on the asserter to show their work, and not on anybody else to simply take anybody's word for it. And I don't need to have WP:OFFLINE explained to me, either — I turn to offline and database sources for my work all the time, so I was already under no illusion that our sources had to be instantly web acessible. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. But WP:PAPERONLY says "If an editor seeking deletion believes the creator placed fictitious references in the article to make a hoax seem legitimate, the burden of proof is on the one seeking deletion." The WP:V policy says, "Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access." So you're free to disagree with core Wikipedia policies which enjoy widespread support, but don't be shocked if your opinions are ignored by those who decide to go along with the policies and guidelines. If you think I'm lying that there are 34+ (I was conservative and didn't count every hit) substantial, pre-scandal news articles about Dolezal at HighBeam, the burden is now on you to go to Higbeam (easy) and show evidence that there aren't. Not counting the hits at Questia, ProQuest, Google News and Books, etc. This is such an easy keep. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a "low profile individual" so BLP1E does not appear to apply here. Besides, it's not even one "event". It's now emerging that doubts about her race pre-date her parents' interview. See here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Strongly advise KEEP, this is a worldwide news story.

See WP:NOTNEWS. Temporary newsiness has no bearing on whether a person is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's the head of a NAACP chapter and has become prominent and covered by many sources. I suspect that people who want to delete this article are not comfortable with the conversation on racial identity she has spawned. Now this may be a flash in the pan, but I doubt it.73.194.148.15 (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Homer Plessy is notable for a single train ride and the fallout from it. No one is seriously discussing deleting him, I trust. Sometimes, one issue is all it takes for a person to become important. the ramifications of this issue are potentially considerable. Hard to believe the question is even being considered at this point in time. Who's got the crystal ball? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.183.150.57 (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above SOXROX (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dennis Bratland; may have borderline notability outside of this. But it also occurs to me that maybe there's a larger article to be written about the unusual phenomenon of white people pretending to be black in the same way as she did. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in German major dailies, e.g. a large article in Süddeutsche Zeitung, refering to a showcase for social passing and stating a nationwide debate in the US. It might be a one-event-celebrity, but is a noteable one. Serten Talk 07:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is Transracial. She is very brave and should be on the cover of Vanity Fair. --Andhisteam (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rachel Dolezal's story has received international news coverage. Such extensive coverage in itself constitutes notability. -- Evans1982 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article doesn't fail the WP:BLP1E test, as she is not only being covered in numerous examples of WP:RS, but she is also head of a NAACP chapter, and is also a highly regarded civil rights activists, although mostly local in scope to Spokane. However, just because it's local, doesn't mean she's [[non-notable. In fact, several essays regarding issues with wikipedia make mention of a lack of local content. 108.183.118.98 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extensive coverage in RS, no question of notability here. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the cogent "keep" reasonings above. This is not a case of WP:1E. The story now surrounding this woman has many aspects to it and I'm certain many more will be added as the story develops. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Agrapides[edit]

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

Deleted back in 2013, but has failed to obtain notability since, fails WP:NGYMNAST Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she may gain notability if she competes in college. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing suggests the subject meets WP:NGYMNAST criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Navarro[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, at least not yet as failing WP:NGYMNAST Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing suggests the subject meets WP:NGYMNAST criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think whitepages is a reliable source. 00:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete as non notable gymnast, Google only brings up a few mentions so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator(non-admin closure). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mouse with the Question Mark Tail[edit]

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

Half-written article about a book. No evidence it's notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Would be happy to userfy it if consensus is to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NBOOK. Seems to be a draft article since almost every section is empty. If notability can be proven on the future, then a simple userfy would be useful. --TL22 (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Userfy~~ per Whpq's vote. The article can be later completed. --TL22 (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles should be judged on notability, and not the condition in which they are in. Userfying would hide the article from other editors, and quite frankly, the original author is not likely to be very good at editting the article. In any case, I have cleaned it up and added sources. -- Whpq (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well now it is ok, so Keep. --TL22 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being a stub is not grounds for deletion. Reviews in Deseret News, Christian Science Monitor, SChool Library Jornal, and a capsule review in the Wall Street Journal were easily found. -- Whpq (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There are enough sources now to pass NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the "Keeps" above. I see no serious issue with it now. Articles in progress often start off "messy" then they grow up. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 11:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing Clearly I'm just really bad at finding book reviews, I was looking for 2 book reviews, in order to pass WP:NBOOK, but couldn't find any. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are about divided as to whether this is a genuine topic, or a hoax or original research. With many participants merely asserting that the one or the other is the case, I can't find an informed consensus one way or the other, or a policy or guideline mandating a particular outcome. Future discussions should focus more on the level of sourcing for this term or concept. If the degree to which it is described in reliable sources is addressed in the discussion, future closers may find the policy WP:NOR easier to apply. Sandstein 11:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racial transformation (individual)[edit]

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

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

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

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

I think this is a hoax. None of the references mention racial transformation and there is no difference between this topic and Passing (racial identity) which this article should be merged into. The point of difference appears to be this absurd and uncited sentence "It is similar to passing; however, it requires some attempt a medical procedure, rather than lying about one's race or using makeup.[citation needed]". -- haminoon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor calling for a definition of the term. Wrong place for that discussion.

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

Calling for a definition of "racial transfromation", I presume it is the following

Wanting to be recognized as other than one's inherent birth/genetic(sic) race
And/or simply wanting some/many/all features from one or more other races
And not having those inherent features/attributes or going beyond "soft transient methods" cosmetically
resorting to "hard permanent methods" physically via plastic surgery and chemicals

versus the definition of "passing"

Wanting to be recognized as or accepting others presumption of one's being other than one's inherent birth/gentic(sic) race
because of having inherent features/attributes
or by using "soft transient methods" via cosmetics, makeup, wigs, contact lens

WurmWoode^T 22:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redirect to Passing (racial identity) for now. I know the Rachel Dolezal insanity is going to attract a huge mountain of coverage on this topic, and won't necessarily be referred to as "passing," but I don't know that "racial transformation" is the correct term. I have heard people joke about being "transracial" and heard people say transgender people feel this is offensive (understandably). This article is purely WP:OR as of now and until there's coverage of it to make it gain its own notability, I don't see why it should be kept. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You forgot to add the {{hoax}} tag to the article. I did it for you. --TL22 (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! This is not a hoax. It's as legitimate as gender transformation (individual). 12.180.133.18 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as legitimate in any way. Transgender people have a diagnosible condition known as gender identity disorder. This is just people who "feel" they should have been a different race, and so decide to pretend they are. I don't see racial identity disorder popping up on the DSM any time soon. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable concept; fails WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 01:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Especially after the Rachel Dolezal controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.180.135.66 (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable references to say that Dolezal underwent "racial transformation"? -- haminoon (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this of being a sockpuppet of 12.180.133.18. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/12.180.133.18 --TL22 (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not 12.180.133.18. Just an unsuspecting anonymous poster who fell into his/her trap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.180.135.66 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ToonLucas22, that's not a reason to create a sock investigation. They have no other pattern. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There is a big difference between (passing) having mixed heritage or advantageous physical attributes versus this article of not having those attribute(s) and seeking to attain them physically (surgical or similar) rather than merely through cosmetics or make-up.
- Make the effort to google women's pursuits of physical beauty and fashion trends and habits of Asian, African, and European markets, revealing a pro-white or pro-western bias, implementing skin whitening, rhinoplasty, eyelid (Asian), and hair straightening. And a rising demographic for men, too (LOL !)

References

** Surgery for "mixing and matching" desired racial features
West, Lindy (July 29, 2014), Can You Change Your Race? 'Ethnic Plastic Surgery' Raises Big Questions, Jezebel

- Surgery blending races
  Roberts, Deborah; Smith, Candace (Oct 3, 2014). "As More Minorities Go Under the Knife, Some Fear Cosmetic Surgery Could Obscure Ethnicity". ABC News. Slupchynskyj says he sees patients of all races, though he admits that many of them seem to want similar looks
  Sylvia Barnett, worries that her daughter is losing her ethnic identity by changing her nose
- Surgery synching with local culture and trends
  Dolnick, Sam (Feb 18, 2011). "Ethnic Differeces Emerge in Plastic Surgery". NY Times.
- More surgery, plastic ethnicity
  O'Connor, Maureen (July 28, 2014). "Is Race Plastic? My Trip Into the 'Ethnic Plastic Surgery' Minefield". NY Magazine.
- More surgery, it is become more popular for ethnic groups over the past decade
  "Briefing Paper: Plastic Surgery for Ethnic Patients". 2013.
- More surgery is ethnically popular
  Alford, Bobby R.; Sturm-O'Brien, Angela K.; Brissett, Annette E.A; Brissett, Anthony E. (2010). "Ethnic trends in facial plastic surgery". Facial Plastic Surgery. 2. 26. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1253496. PMID 20446200.

WurmWoode^T 03:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand your argument. The only article you've shown here that mentions "racial transformation" defines it in a very diiferent way to the article we're discussing. -- haminoon (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WurmWoode: None of these articles discuss "racial transformation" as far as I can tell. These are articles discussing plastic surgery among different ethnicities. People changing their body because of pressure for a "Western" beauty standard (such as Asian eyelid surgery) is something else. If there is a big difference between "passing" (because of hair/makeup/just looking one way) and "transforming" (through surgery or other permanent alterations) as you claim, we need WP:RS that say so. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is an ongoing surgical/cosmetic trend of women, and men, seeking to alter what they perceive as racial signifiers, but "racial transformation" was a term used by Rachel Dolezal. It has created the usual explosion of click bait and the lightning-fast Wikipedia article. There is a phenomenon that might need coverage in ethnicity or racism, but it's a bag of mixed stuff that doesn't offer to "transform" the person's innermost being, which is what Rachel Dolezal claimed happened. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am calling for clarification of definition, I have inserted at top— Preceding unsigned comment added by WurmWoode (talk • contribs)

I doubt that "racial transformation" was used by Dolezal. This entire article appears to be a hoax. -- haminoon (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Transracial is NOT the same as "passing" ("passing" has a Wikipedia page so I won't explain it here). An example of one being "transracial" is the June 2015 controversy involving Rachel Dolezal. I adopt the reasons others have said this page is a "keep." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartinsanfrancisco (talk • contribs) 04:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dolezal already has an article. No RS have claimed she has undergone a "racial transformation" - according to above, this requires surgery or some kind of cosmetic procedure. It seems like she just used spray tan and wore a wig. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Who is to say what is transracial? I say a wig and an atomic tan qualifies Rachel Dolezal to be as transracial as she likes. Just like Bruce Jenner, who hasn't had his penis cut or his gonads removed. He says he is a grandmother now, well, more power to him, and more power to Rachel Dolezal, transracial woman. 06:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs)

"[M]ore power to him (sic)", you say as you misgender her, deadname her, and use the phrase "penis cut". Ogress _smash! 22:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is discussed worldwide by now (e.g. in Poland), gives rise to numerous memes (e.g. "if somebody feels Transnegro, let them claim to be Transnegro"), and contributes to healthy discussions about race, truth and political corectness. Soon reporters and public will be lookup up this very article for edification. Zezen (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article does not appear to mention racial transformation or anything of the sort. -- haminoon (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Need more info. Is this popping up because of Rachel Dolezal? Only person that I have known to do it was the singer/pop star Michael Jackson but he's dead now so I'm not sure if it succeeded or not. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heyyouoverthere, yes, it's related to Dolezal. The article has been around for years but did not receive attention. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Passing. It doesn't seem to be a separate topic - and a number of commenters above seem to think that one can surgically remove one's parentage. That cannot be correct. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't disagree more. The article on passing focuses on people's statements (such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren stating she is Cherokee), whereas the article on transformation is about what people do to transform themselves. For instance, Adjunct Professor of African-American Studies Rachel Dolezal transformed herself by dying her hair, curling it up, and taking atomic suntans or dying her skin. XavierItzm (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually plenty of the examples in the Passing article involve skin dye and hair dye; eg Black like Me. -- haminoon (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Sources needs to be found as a WP:NEO / overlap with passing. It may be WP:TOOSOON or need a complete rewrite, but attempt at finding sources and fixing should be made first. Widefox; talk 10:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with Мандичка. This is a somewhat nonsensical neologism.--Rpclod (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge/redirect to passing: The debaters are indirectly asking people to consider the validity of race as opposed to ethnicity and as opposed to political identity. That is not a matter for Wikipedia to litigate. Furthermore, the RS are about the argument, not about a stable concept or practice. The practice at present would redirect to "passing," inasmuch as it assumes a stable political and cultural concept of "race." Yes, there is a firestorm of nonce usage because of a now-embarrassed activist, but, had she called herself "racially transmigrated," that wouldn't make "racial transmigration" any more a real thing. It would only make it a more common search result while blogs seek clicks. For all of these reasons, ephemeral references don't count as RS. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my position on the debate/debaters here, but the article's depth seems to replicate the discussion at "passing" far more than it stakes it to a neologism, so redirect and merge makes more sense than deletion. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Original research. The article lumps a lot of things together that are not really related. White Americans tend to want darker skin and South Koreans larger eyes, etc. No source to put everything together.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Just as Transgender is becoming mainstream, so will Transracial. Some people have gender identity disorder, some people have racial identity disorder, and some have both. There are lots people who identify as "transracial", and it is of course possible to change one's "race", because "race" is subjective, just like gender. --Andhisteam (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no phenomenon called "transracial" today and no people who consider themselves to be "transracial." There is no disorder called "racial identity disorder", and this comment frankly demonstrates that you are engaging in trolling. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - There is such a thing as "racial identity disorder", as well as "The WrongSkin movement". There are discriminated against, laughed at, and ridiculed. They are also subject to microagression. There is a bunch of trollers trying to suppress and censor this. --Andhisteam (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. This is a hoax perpetrated by 4chan trolls in the wake of the Rachel Dolezal case to ridicule her and/or transgender people, not a real phenomenon. There are no people who identify as "transracial", and it isn't possible to change one's "race", because "race" is not a real category recognized by the scientific community. The topic supposedly covered here is already better covered in passing (racial identity) (which should be retitled "passing (ethnic identity)") and passing (sociology), and possibly in other articles on inter-ethnic relations. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Many of these !votes are to "keep transracial." This is a vote in regard to racial transformation (individual), and neither the term "transracial" nor the concept of "transracial." This latter term has a great deal of usage and adoption, although it's pretty mushy in terms of definition. At any rate, I, at least, was moving to delete this article, not the concepts. (It seems like a lot of people confuse articles with their concepts.) Hithladaeus (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Racial transformation is a genuine topic apart from passing. See this article for an example. I've removed the OR, unreferenced and possible hoax material.--Nowa (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears all you've removed are the hoax and failed verification tags, and added some material that belongs in ethnic plastic surgery and Passing (racial identity). -- haminoon (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be concerned about something, but I'm not sure what it is. Can you elaborate?--Nowa (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX - this is 4chan "having fun" with the Rachel Dolezal trainwreck. Ogress _smash! 22:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. 4Chan should nor be given an inch in the pedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Ethnic plastic surgery, which is more or less what this article is supposed to be. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing here that isn't better (or already) discussed at the article on passing. Article seems to have been created as a joke/to make a point, and I don't see anything salvageable here. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to take another look. The most recent reference by Cressida Heyes argues that there is no such thing as true racial transformation. The concept,however, is still out there and deserves at least some treatment if only to indicate that it doesn't exist.--Nowa (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - None of the claims about this being a 4Chan hoax provide any evidentiary support, and regardless of any problems with the article, it does not by any form of logic fall into the category of "hoax". If anything, I'm inclined to think the opposite ... that people from 4Chan are making the hoax claim. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because a quick google search shows chans enjoying the lulz. Ogress _smash! 15:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems very real. Just because it may sound silly and there is also a media circus, does not mean it does not exist. --TiberiasTiberias (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If a person can be born one sex and then think they are another and change and that's accepted then there is no way we can say this can't be accepted Cls14 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um... gender is a thing, race is not a thing. You're making the kind of argument that people make about how if gay marriage is allowed, people are going to be able to marry their dogs. Ogress _smash! 15:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WHATABOUTX. --TL22 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable term, and I agree this may be part of a systematic hoax involving the Dolezal case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NEO, based in WP:OR and junk sources. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once this becomes accepted in proper literature, not just the blogosphere or tweetosphere, we can take it up again. For now, it's a neologism that has no value outside of the media cycle--and very little traction inside it. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ethnic plastic surgery, which has an existing article, and is the real topic of most of the references given. I wouldn't say this article is a 'hoax' as such, but its subject matter is too vague: it doesn't make clear what constitutes 'racial transformation' or what it refers to. This might become a notable concept at some point in future, but it doesn't seem to be notable yet. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment: it appears many of the comments above are really about the article transracial identity (which is also up for AFD) rather than this one. I should say that unlike that article, I think this one could potentially be worth saving. There could potentially be an article which covered phenomena like blackface, yellowface and other forms of 'racial impersonation', as well as more long-term acts like plastic surgery and skin whitening. But that article is a long way off at the moment, and it's questionable whether it would really be a coherent topic, so I say merge or delete this one for now until someone can do a better job. Robofish (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Passing" is being born in a way that appears to fit the phenotype of another race. This is actively aiming to change your appearance and it's done by...looks for word...different people from all different backgrounds '''tAD''' (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of examples in the Passing article about people changing their appearance to look like another race. Do you think the Passing article is wrong? -- haminoon (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah um don't say what passing means if you don't know what it means. It's not about "being born". Ogress _smash! 22:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable neologism. Skyerise (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Racial_transformation_(individual)#Draft_.22Ethical_considerations.22_section for examples of academic usage of term over past 10 years.--Nowa (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable and a valid analogue to having an Identity disorder. 67.149.41.193 (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an IP voting? Ogress _smash! 22:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Note that comparing Dolezal's actions to a transitioning is profoundly offensive to transgender people, a ludicrous misunderstanding of what's going on and a good way of identifying that some users are either trolling or really need to do some reading before speaking about anything, ever again, in any venue, if the desire is not to look silly. Ironholds (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article no longer contains any reference to Delezal or transgender.--Nowa (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; this note was for the truly horrifying comments in this AfD. Ironholds (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Any more comments on the article itself?--Nowa (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -- this is part and parcel of the same stuff that is going on at Transracial identity. -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic, well-sourced, neutral tone. Seems worthy of inclusion to me. Kelly ^hi! 13:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article to me seems analogous to Sex reassignment surgery, which is certainly notable and encyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 19:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious. First, SRS is a surgical procedure for transgender people. In contrast, the term "transracial" refers to "children of color adopted by white people" because no one recognised "transracial" as a category. Until you understand the difference between race and gender... better read up. I'm not sure who would be more offended, people of color or transgender people. Ogress _smash! 01:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my similar contents in the parallel AfD for Transracial identity, this meets the scope, breadth and quality of RS needed for inclusion. BlueSalix (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This definitely seems real to me (look at Michael Jackson, for example), but whether it's notable or not, I don't know. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His article states that he was diagnosed with vitiligo as stated in a biography and in his autopsy after his death. The Snowager-is awake 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Passing (racial identity), but the topic still has some original research. The Snowager-is awake 15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (does not look to be anything to merge, but not opposed to a close as merge to passing (racial identity) and/or ethnic plastic surgery, without redirect) - Similar rationale for my !vote at the transracial identity AfD: fails WP:NEO, ill-defined subject, not sufficiently distinct from other existing topics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Peter Mueller[edit]

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

References do not verify any of the information in the article and do not prove that this person is notable. Pishcal — ♣ 05:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing suggests that WP:ACADEMIC criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of meeting WP:ACADEMIC either in the article or the subject's web (auto-)biography, only a Fulbright scholarship. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to meet WP:PROF, WP:GPG, and WP:BASIC. --Abaget (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Green Party of England and Wales. The nomination for deletion is based on lack of independent reliable sources. This is countered by haminoon's statement that a news search provides such sources. This appears to be true. Most of the AfD discussion involves consideration of the autonomy of the Wales Green Party. That is interesting and worthwhile, though our guideline on local branches of larger organisations (WP:BRANCH) deals with the coverage of such branches in reliable sources, rather than how autonomous they are. It is not about who or what controls the organisation, but how independently notable they are within Wikipedia's guidelines. The statement that there is coverage in reliable sources needs to be balanced against the guidance that the coverage should "extend beyond the chapter's local area". While the news sources that talk about the Wales Green Party are mainly Welsh - South Wales Argus, Wales Online, etc, there are some national sources: ITV, BBC, but not many, and the coverage is barely significant. The Wales Green Party exists and is verifiable. It has attracted some coverage, though mostly limited to its own territory. There are suggestions to merge or simply redirect the title to Green Party of England and Wales, and this seems an appropriate outcome. Though the majority of ivotes are for "Keep", the lack of significant enough national coverage weighs against that option at the moment. A merge into the Green Party of England and Wales would allow the main points about the Welsh branch to be available to readers, and that information, if it builds, and gains national coverage, can later be split back out into a standalone article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wales Green Party[edit]

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

Wales Green Party is not a Party within a Party as the article states. That is not possible. Similar size parties such as UKIP do not have a page for each of their regional sections. Greens have no MEPs, AMs or MP representation in Wales, and have not featured in the media.

Absolutely zero independent or reliable citations. In four years no one has added a single citation. Much of the information is the Generic Green Party of England and Wales information. Other pieces of information, such as the founding year are simply incorrect, GPEW was founded in 1990, the Wales Green Party Branch itself some time after became official, yet the date listed for WGP is 1973

In short. Much of the information is wrong. No citations, no notability, not in the media, no representation in government. No need for the article. I would say to anyone wanting to save it that they find citations and it be merged into the GPEW page. Drowz0r (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party of England and Wales. According to their website, Wales Green Party is part of their organization. They list Green Party of Northern Ireland and Green Party of Scotland as "sister" organizations. I can't find any information that supports notability or that they run under their own name, even for upcoming election I think they are registered under "Green Party of England and Wales." —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ^I find this the most agreeable outcome. Any useful information that can gain citations can be placed on the E&W page.Drowz0r (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without regurgitating all of my comments from Talk:Wales Green Party - the Welsh party is indeed part of the GPEW but it is different to the English regions as it has its own leadership. It is simply not true to say the Welsh Greens have not featured in the media, there are plenty of stories about them.

If the article is devoid of citations or some of the information is incorrect, that is grounds for improvement not deletion as per the deletion policy. There are separate pages for Welsh Labour, Welsh Conservatives and Welsh LibDems, who all operate as semi-autonomous parts of their respective UK parties.Frinton100 (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not true to say they have not featured in the media, then where are the citations for the last few years? This delete request has been open for quite some time and while I accept you may have seen them in the news somewhere, I can see no record of it. Like you, at the risk of repeating myself, the only stuff in the media is about the Spokesperson (Leader?) and it's mostly about how she once appeared on Come Dine With Me. Drowz0r (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm wondering if the nominator could clarify some things for us first. My understanding is that Wales is a country rather than a region, and that this article is similar to the Scottish Labour Party. -- haminoon (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I"m not the nominator but I'll explain - England, Scotland and Wales are constituent countries of the United Kingdom and each have their own parliament. But obviously England and Wales are more likely to be cooperative in some things it seems (probably because England and Wales have been united for so much longer) and it seems for some things they are united, for example, the footer of this charity states it is "Registered as a Charity in England and Wales (No 211015) and in Scotland (SC037789)." It seems like the Green Party is so small and (at least in Wales) rather insignificant that it has not needed to operate independently in Wales. —Мандичка^YO 😜

N. Ireland has a substantial amount of devolved powers, Scotland being a close second. Wales has almost no devolved powers by comparison, which is why you often see places like Scotland mentioned separately while Wales and England are often grouped together. We get it with most data reporting too, E&W crime or prison figures for example. That's not to say Wales and England are the same country but from a legal perspective there are very few differences in the law between England and Wales, certainly when compared to Scotland and N. Ireland.

This video explains some stuff about how the UK and stuff is set up - but it doesn't go into the differences between Wales, N. Ireland, Scotland and England.

Wales is a country, within the UK, but it is also a principality which is treated like a region. Drowz0r (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite true to say that they don't operate independently in Wales. They have just taken the decision not to be a completely independent party like the Green Party in Scotland. The Greens are unusual in the UK in operating as three separate parties (Eng&Wales, Scotland, NI). Most national-level parties either operate in one constituent country only (e.g. Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru or Ulster Unionist Party), or across all of Great Britain, or the whole UK. As mentioned above, the Welsh Greens operate like Scottish Labour or the Welsh Conservatives, maintaining a degree of autonomy while still being part of a larger party. Frinton100 (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They do not operate independently in Wales. They might have a certain degree of autonomy but so do every other branch of every other political party. They do not all get a regional page that is excluded from the citation rules. Drowz0r (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The English regions of other parties (or indeed of the Green Party) do not have the same level of independence. They don't have their own leaders for example, or have their own party descriptions registered with the EC. The way to make the page fit in with the citation rules is to add more citations, which I have been doing over the last few days. There is still more to do, and plenty of available RS to add. Frinton100 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is true but I don't see why you're bringing in an English comparison when Ireland, Scotland and Wales have perfectly fitting comparisons. England is the exception, so that's a little misleading to bring up English Independence. In fact the video I linked above explains how England is the exception when it comes to devolved powers. The way to make the page fit is for it to be merged into the main GPEW page or deleted. The citations you have added are only events for the GPEW which have happened in Wales. Again UKIP have all of this AND more but no-one thought it a good idea to give them their own Welsh regional page - because it doesn't fit in with the citation or notoriety rules of wiki. Drowz0r (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned English independence, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. The reason I am comparing to England, is because we are talking about a section of the Green Party of England and Wales. GPs in Scotland and NI (which is what I assume you meant by Ireland) are of course independent parties, so are not relevant. The point about the Welsh party is that it is different to the English regional parties, for the reasons previously outlined. It is therefore wrong to argue that because the English regional GPs don't have their own article, then the WGP shouldn't either.

The citations I have added are a mixture of election results, information on leadership elections, and Welsh campaigns for which clearly the Welsh leadership have taken the lead. There is still more work to be done. I have some other articles which I intend to cite and there will probably be others that I have not found yet. Frinton100 (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources are provided to support any of the assertions. The article has existed since 2004 - certainly enough time to reference reliable sources if any existed.--Rpclod (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its clear this isn't a regional section but an autonomous national section. Having an elected leader gives a section real autonomy. I doubt UKIP has a similar setup so that comparison is invalid. Saying it is not a party seems to be contradicted by all the media coverage calling it the "Wales Green Party". A quick news search for the leaders name brought back a larger number of reliable sources referring to "Wales Green Party", and sometimes just "Greens" in the Welsh media. Obviously theres a lot of work to do on the article but I can't imagine anyone would want to do that when it could get deleted soon. -- haminoon (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP do have a similar set up but they don't get a regional page. In fact, they have an elected Welsh Leader who is also an MEP, which is more than the Greens in Wales can say. I do not see how it can be justified that the smaller party in Wales, gets a page, excluded from the citation rules, when parties like UKIP do not.--Drowz0r (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's had several years to be improved. I doubt this deletion tag is the reason it hasn't been updated. The elected "Leader" wasn't elected as a leader, she was elected as a Spokesperson. Frinton and the wiki page shows her as Leader but I cannot find any evidence to this effect and the results of the election are seemingly impossible to find too. I cannot find any reason as to why Spokesperson became Leader without another election or how this happened, so I would question the legitimacy of them having a Welsh Leader. Drowz0r (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On further inspection, it seems they do not have an elected leader. To quote the Green Party England and Wales wiki page "Also differently from the full party, the Wales Green Party (and the North West region of England) elects a Principal Speaker who may refer to themselves as the 'Leader' of the Wales Green Party, although, like the Green Party of England and Wales' former principal speakers, they have no powers of leadership. The current leader of the Wales Green Party is Pippa Bartolotti.[98]." Drowz0r (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, there is no source to back up the claim on the GPEW site that she is only a spokesperson - wikipedia is not a RS(WP:WPNOTRS). There are press releases and articles from the WGP calling her (and her predecessor) "leader", and calling Slaughter the "deputy leader" and similar stories from other RS (BBC, Daily Post, Penarth Times) which I have provided on the WGP page. Before the GPEW changed their structure from having Principal Speakers to a Leader, they never referred to the Speakers as "Leaders", so I find it strange that they now would do so in Wales. Still, as I said right at the beginning of this debate, I am not a GP expert, and the leadership section could certainly do with some attention from someone who is (and probably renaming too - "Structure" would be more appropriate, with some further details on how they operate and their relationship with the GPEW). Frinton100 (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look into the campaign period, on the internet or indeed look up her competition, you'll find they were competing for the role of Spokesperson, as mentioned on Andy Chyba's blog here. Drowz0r (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what he actually says is "Spokesperson (aka Leader)", so he is using both terms simultaneously. We still have no clarification as to the official position, and whatever the official position, "leader" and "deputy leader" are widely used in news reports and the WGP's own communications. Frinton100 (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Their manifesto says to be read in accompaniment with the GPEW manifesto, their whole website is a subsite of GPEW site. They appear in every way to be a subgroup of GPEW. SPACKlick (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a page for Northern Ireland Conservatives even though it is quite clear that this opeates as a regional/national section of the UK Conservative Party. Northern Ireland Conservatives do not even have a single elected local councillor. Welsh Labour and Welsh Conservative Party have separate wiki articles, even though these are not separate organisations. My preference would be for an article for an organisation as wiki shouldn't be used for free party political advertising. However I think there needs to be consistency and it seems undemocratic to delete the Welsh Green page when other political party's extra articles are kept. This is the link to Welsh Green Party that I found http://www.walesgreenparty.org.uk/ which could help with updating the page. Isthisuseful (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland has a very different political situation to the rest of the UK. The rules are very different there and the Conservatives are the oldest political party in the UK. To suggest the Greens and Cons are in the same league is a little off... but even if this were true, the citation rules still apply. Drowz0r (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I think Isthisuseful's point was that the NI Conservatives' support base is very small (far smaller than WGP - about one-sixth the vote share at the 2014 European election) and yet they - rightly - qualify for a page. The age of the party is irrelevant.Frinton100 (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am for the lowest possible barriers to inclusion for articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology. This is the sort of material that needs to be in a comprehensive encyclopedia, and I think there is all Ignore All Rules case to be made for each. Beyond that, this is a national division of a multinational party of substantial size, seemingly an easy call. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial size, do you have evidence of that? There is literally no data on how large the Wales branch is because they do not publish their membership figures or anything else, as a normal party would. Drowz0r (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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