Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 October 30 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Desert Knights[edit]

Hot Desert Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know if searches are being filtered, but I'm not seeing any evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources of this porn video company. The article in its current form fails our core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alderland Centre[edit]

Alderland Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. This is a small commercial office building in Toronto's suburbs. It has a few retail tenants and a small office building. I was only able to locate two secondary sources: [1], [2], and both are trade journals. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable shopping centre (less than 40 stores) and article written more like an advert. Ajf773 (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shopping malls do not all get an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist — to get a Wikipedia article, a shopping mall needs to actually be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Major facilities like the Eaton Centre and Yorkdale Mall will obviously have that — but a suburban strip mall whose most notable anchor tenant is an IDA drugstore simply will not. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable. It simply reads like a mall directory. None of the external links are actually functional (even after removing the extra "/"). nerdgoonrant (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Butler (British politician)[edit]

Richard Butler (British politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP, with campaign brochure overtones and poorly sourced, of a local politician. As always, Wikipedia does not grant an automatic notability freebie to the mayors of English civil parishes, where the mayoralty is a purely ceremonial position that rotates annually so that everybody on council gets a turn -- in England, mayoralty only equals an automatic presumption of notability in cities where the position is directly elected, and otherwise it's pass WP:GNG or bust. But for sourcing, what we have here is his profile on the council's own website, a single article about his swearing-in as ceremonial mayor, and a "why you should vote for me" essay written by him in the local newspaper when he ran for election to Parliament -- but he lost that election, and non-winning candidates for Parliament don't get automatic inclusion freebies either. And both the council website and the self-penned campaign essay are primary sources that cannot assist a notability case, leaving us with just the swearing-in article for reliable sourcing — but one reliable source does not constitute a GNG pass. Nothing here is substantive enough ("campaigning on issues around parakeets"?), or sourced well enough, to make him more notable than the norm for a ceremonial non-executive mayor or an unelected parliamentary candidate. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable local politician. Bearcat has it absolutely right about non-directly-elected mayors, unless they've made their own mark in some other way. (That's my English POV.) See Buggins' turn. Narky Blert (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in line with WP:BIO - "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IsAnybodyDown?[edit]

AfDs for this article:
IsAnybodyDown? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This new vote is a process to remove the previous article IsAnybodyDown? and/or merge/redirect its contents to the new, correct article Craig Brittain (entrepreneur) who has achieved notability via coverage from several notable sources: Business Insider, Adland, Forbes and Fusion. All of the old contents can be retained as this is simply a merge for notability which no longer meets the confines of a single wiki entry about a defunct website, but rather is rightfully extended to include a notable person. The subject has received sustained news coverage for several years after the closure of his initially notable website, including multiple notable events, thus meeting WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The reliability/notability of the sources also meets the WP:NOTPROMOTION standard and thus is qualified to be a standalone article about a living person.

Original AfD vote:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IsAnybodyDown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AManInWikipedia (talk • contribs) 22:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Subject retains the notability established in the previous AFD. Significant coverage by NPR's On The Media, Ars Technica, Coverage here is not just of the one founder, but of the business with multiple partners. Supposed other coverage of Brittain is Adland, which does not mention his name in the half-paragraph related to a tweet Dryvyng put out, Fusion, which discusses Brittain and Dryvyng in the context of IsAnybodyDown and its effect on any future plans; and Business Insider, which both opens and closes with discussion of IsAnybodyDown. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 29. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the first nomination deletion, there has been a settlement with the FTC to take down the website, the details of which are not usual for the FTC. Given the FTC settlement and the response that the website took, it meets notability requirements.DivaNtrainin (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- well referenced and pertinent. The information on the founder's later ventures can go though. I went ahead and removed it as off-topic content for the article: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I somehow misread the noms block length so have reverted the closure. My apologies. –Davey2010Talk 00:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Archika Didi[edit]

Dr Archika Didi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Page's current references are to a tweet and an image. Meatsgains (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 07:40, 30 October 2016 (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. While a rename of the article to Murder of Shelby Tracy Town did not gain consensus yet in this discussion, it should be considered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Tracy Tom[edit]

Shelby Tracy Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. As sad as this story is, murder is unfortunately far too common in this world for Wikipedia to viably maintain an article about every murder that occurs -- but I'm just not seeing particularly strong evidence that this one clears the "more notable than the norm" bar in any significant way. There are just five references here, all exclusively local media published in her own hometown -- but that many local references could always be provided about every murder. And counting the number of footnotes linking to each citation, the most relied-upon source here is a Blogspot blog -- an unreliable source that can never be used in a Wikipedia article -- while the second most relied-upon source is a biweekly community newspaper of the type that's acceptable for supplementary sourcing of additional facts after GNG has already been met by stronger sources, but cannot be a carrier of GNG. There's really only one source here that counts toward a GNG pass, in fact -- and even it's a "six years after the fact" blurb that's much more about the killer than the victim. Furthermore, this article seems to exist partly to mount an argument against the court's finding that the murder wasn't a hate crime -- note, frex, that despite the court having ruled otherwise, the article is filed in Category:Hate crimes -- but Wikipedia does not exist to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to relitigate murder trials in the court of public opinion: if a court of law decides that it wasn't a hate crime, then it's not our role to express an editorial opinion about whether they were right or wrong about that. There's just not enough here, on either substance or sourcing, to deem this more notable than most of the thousands upon thousands of other murders that took place in 2003 without getting Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have a look at some of these sources [3] (Vice News) [4] (Huffington Post) [5] (Business Insider) [6] (Daily Dot). She was also heavily discussed in the book Children with Gender Identity Disorder: A Clinical, Ethical, and Legal Analysis By Simona Giordano. Passes WP:GNG. Thanks, JohnTombs48 (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 07:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Murder of Shelby Tracy Tom. The case itself is widely discussed with enough sources to have an independant article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG as shown by JohnTombs48. Rab V (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes GNG. and Otherstuffexists is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Murder of Shelby Tracy Tom, as the event itself is what's notable. I recommend keeping due to the ensuing controversy around the crime classification. The coverage in Children with Gender Identity Disorder is also compelling. Tone down the WP:MEMORIAL aspects of it though, and remove the "Hate crime" category. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2016 (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 01:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saba Shubitidze[edit]

Saba Shubitidze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The player does not meet the criteria for inclusion as per WP:NRU he has only played 1 season for a club in a minor championship and has not played in a major international competition Domdeparis (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of deleting this article now. This is a young player with several caps for Georgia, which is currently ranked 11th in the world. He has been named to the squad for the November tests, and the team and its players will likely draw significant coverage in the coming weeks, especially since they are playing Scotland, a Tier 1 side. I don't see a reason to delete the article now just to re-create it later. CUA 27 (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CUA 27 as per the criteria in WP:NRU he doesn't come close to meeting the notability conditions as he would have had to have played in a major international competition such as the world cup to meet them. Simply playing against Scotland or any other major team would not qualify him. IMHO if we allowed pages for every capped player for every national team in every sport just because he or she may meet the criteria later Wikipedia would lose its encyclopedic nature and simply become a mirror of the web pages of the different sporting associations.Domdeparis (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You havent addressed the points I've made above, but have instead chosen to argue against points I didn't make. The first point I made was why now? The player will spend November playing a string of high-profile matches. Why the rush to delete now? Why not withdraw your proposal for a few weeks and then re-raise if still a valid concern? The other point was blindly relying on a guideline that suggests that a player with 7 caps for 11th ranked Georgia is not notable, but a player with 1 cap for a nation ranked 16th-18th (Can, Rom, USA) is notable. Surely you can see the weakness there. CUA 27 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CUA 27 I have addressed the 2 points but I think I need to make it clearer for you
  • 'This is a young player with several caps for Georgia, which is currently ranked 11th in the world': REPLY this does not make him notable according to WP:NRU check it out and you will understand.
  • 'He has been named to the squad for the November tests, and the team and its players will likely draw significant coverage in the coming weeks, especially since they are playing Scotland, a Tier 1 side.' :REPLY even if he plays against Scotland and there is significant coverage this alone does not qualify him under the criteria WP:NRU

The only reason for him to have a wikipedia entry after the November tests would be if he makes some very notable plays and scores some notable tries that qualify him under WP:CCS. My reply is very simple it is too early for him to have his entry NOW. So I would ask you why keep the entry and not recreate it once he fille the different criteria in WP:NRU. If one follows your logic then we should create a page for every international player just in case they become notable and if they don't make a case for deleting it. this is not what wikipedia is for IMHO Domdeparis (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm no footy expert but he doesn't meet the standards and I see articles like this get deleted all the time.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:40, 8 November 2016 (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 speedily deleted, per WP:CSD#G3. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newchellberry fissure[edit]

Newchellberry fissure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing this to AfD following declining a speedy for hoax. There are three pages of ghits - but a large number are wiki-type hits and not reliable. And three pages only wouldn't be much for a really notable subject. I feel that this needs some discussion. Peridon (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like a hoax to me, nothing in any reliable sources. MB 21:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. I find no sources which don't look like WP mirrors. In particular, there is no mention in Google Scholar. The article author was an SPA who edited only this article, on only two days, and never returned to add sources or defend it - a common pattern for hoaxers. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as it should've been, searches easily found only Wikipedia copied mirrors and by far nothing else at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a mention of it here, where it's called the Newchelberry fissure (1 L), but I can't be sure they didn't obtain the info from Wikipedia. If this is real, it's extremely obscure, as that is the only thing other than Wikipedia mirrors I've been able to find. Adam9007 (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quiz sites often derive info from Wikipedia - these days, what doesn't? (probably the Britannica, but you never know...) Peridon (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (edit conflict) Examining the ghits, every single one of them is a overt or disguised copy from WP. The ones labelled study guide are apparently automatically sourced from WP except quizlet which seems to be manually constructed from various sources. The chances of the term being genuine is extremely low. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 30 October 2016 (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 01:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shailene Garnett[edit]

Shailene Garnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I still confirm my PROD after it removed by author. Fails WP:NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 20:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 20:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 07:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable actor JohnTombs48 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She almost makes it in, her role in 'The Dirties' which won several awards gets her close and probably will be notable after 'The Sons of God' comes out but it's too soon --Domdeparis (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wet Asses[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Big Wet Asses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable film series; significant RS coverage cannot be found. I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles follow the same format and have the same notability challenges:

Slutty and Sluttier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evil Anal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belladonna: No Warning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flower's Squirt Shower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flower's Squirt Shower's AfD closed as no consensus in February 2016. Slutty & Sluttier's 2013 AfD closed as keep, in part based on the assertion that AVN wins are sufficient for notability under WP:NFILM. I believe this to be a faulty argument, as secondary reliable source are required for a stand-alone article, and the awards themselves (even if they are not PR driven, of which I'm not convinced) are not significant and well known. For closed AfDs on comparable articles, please see:

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 23:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Cheeks[edit]

Fish Cheeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication given that this story is notable, refs are study guides. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, study guides may indicate that a work is studied at schools, see 4. of WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, works by Amy Tan may also be covered by 5. of WP:NBOOK? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, added women writers project to article talkpage so that participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am undecided at this point in time, but I do note that the bulk of search results I'm pulling up are almost entirely school lesson plans, so it does look like it's pretty regularly used in classrooms. (See this for an example.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artmox[edit]

Artmox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. No reliable sources provided. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks any coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin family of Xanth[edit]

Goblin family of Xanth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is nothing but a lot of unsourced fancruft on a number of minor fictional characters. I can find no real sources on these characters as a group showing any notability. I tried searching for a few of the individual characters mentioned here as well, but even then, I was coming up with nothing but brief mentions in plot summaries. At first I was going to suggest redirecting the page to the main Xanth article, but I'm not sure that this is even a plausible search term, as I think the actual terminology of "Goblin Family of Xanth" was made up for this article. When I searched for that phrase, all that came up were this article, and mirrors of it.64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherkin[edit]

Otherkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Strong Delete (or Very Weak Merge Therianthropy). Synopsis: This article is a long-standing problematic item which is deeply polarizing due to it's lack of factual basis and being primarily sourced upon, among other things, unverifiable sources, skewed original research/bollocks based in fan cruft (it is suggested within this debate page that there exists the possibility that it is in-fact not associated with furry, but it quickly becomes clear that it is in-fact analogous/identical to the group described in the Therianthropy page; this bears critical importance, as a redundant duplicate of an existing article with significantly worse sourcing, should be merged into the better of the two as a side-note at the minimum). As a page, it has historically been overseen by numerous persons who insist on pushing out factual information or alternative explanations based in reason in favour of their own biased perspectives which bear no brunt of critical scrutiny under their purview. Previously it has been claimed this is an "established belief system" with "many adherents", but is at best the outermost extremes of fringe beliefs. The overseeing group has also notoriously been uncivil (notably a long standing contributor has been outright banned for introducing various points of bias and non-neutral perspectives to various articles) and it takes no time to see that many of the participants prefer to bully rather then build the content of this article in order to push a specific narrative that suits them best. Attempts to edit the article have been met with much resistance and outright reversion feuds (despite numerous edits over the past year, the article remains much unchanged, even ignoring typical spam or trolling), as well as continuous antagonistic behaviour by those with a vested interest (and in some cases a provable outright conflict of interest) in a narrative which is unsuitable for wikipedia. Much of the news sources are rife with unverified/unverifiable claims, sensationalist phrasing/statements and imagery, and of great importance lacking any real notability or sustained interest. It is through these facts that it is strongly evident this is little more then a neologism, having not had sufficient backing from reliable sources.
Some of the most egregious offences come from the further marginalization of (among others) transgender people through the use of language intended to invoke an association with transgender peoples' struggles or any other sort of actual marginalization. This despicable demonstration of self-marginalization through the use of vulnerable peoples' struggles shows clearly the attitude of people intending upon positioning themselves as a vulnerable class outside the realm of what actually constitutes marginalization to invoke sympathy or special minority privileges that are reserved for those whom are at risk of actual harm for reasons beyond their actual control. Specifically, discussion is also heavily based on fallacy as well as manipulative use of weasel words to maintain this fallacious status quo.
To recap, specific citations:
  • Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • A distinct lack of reliable sources which meet standards and are not tertiary, nor original research.
  • It is a distinct possibility that otherkin may be a fork of therianthropy in order to dodge accountability for some of the more esoteric beliefs. If anything, this further pushes the need to have them together to demonstrate the width of the perspectives and interpretations from their adherents.
  • Most sources are forum topics, newsgroup postings, magazine articles, books of non-academic value (with a strong focus on magical thinking), and other highly questionable/disreputable sources, such as:
  1. (About self) Lupa (2007). A Field Guide to Otherkin. Immanion Press. pp. 25–26, 50, 52. ISBN 978-1-905713-07-3.
  2. (Highly questionable) Michelle Belanger; Father Sebastiaan (2004). The Psychic Vampire Codex: A Manual of Magick and Energy Work. Weiser Books. ISBN 1-57863-321-4. /--/ Some feel that their difference is purely spiritual, while others believe there is a genetic difference between themselves and humanity. /--/
  3. (Self-serving and self-published) "The Elven Nation Manifesto.....everyone must read this!!!!". alt.magick. 1995-02-06.
  1. Much of the material is based on individual points of view, such as "Some claim to be able to shapeshift mentally or astrally—meaning that they experience the sense of being in their particular form while not actually changing physically".
  2. The very opening is a non-start with "Otherkin are a subculture people who socially identify as partially or entirely non-human".
  • Overseers of the page content have a reputation of abuses:
  1. Titanium Dragon, banned, had a history of introducing bias into articles through sneaky edits with questionable sources.
  2. Jeraphine Gryphon, retired this past month, demonstrated a lack of understanding of the policies as well as conflating transgender marginalization, amounting to self-marginalization by suggested false-associations.
  • This page is also redundant, given it can be at-best described as a sub-component of the larger and more inclusive Therianthropy page. As an alternative to deletion, portions which are not redundant and also pass a higher muster of fact-checking and verification should be merged into that page. Specific citation: Therianthropy: The belief that a person has a deep spiritual or mentalconnection to a certain animal . . . Therianthropes believe that they possess the spirit/soul of an animal or the mentality of an animals,either through reincarnation, mergeance, or other means. —therian.wikia.com, quoted from the first paragraph of the first section. Furthermore the author articulates the same core principle himself: “Therianthropy is a state of being in which the Therianthrope exists, lives, thinks, has instincts, andoften acts as a non-human animal. Not like, but 'as'.” from the document Robertson, Venetia. "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the OnlineTherianthropy Movement". Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 16 (3): 7–30. doi:10.1525/nr.2013.16.3.7. Retrieved 31 October 2016.
  • As noted below in the debate, there is a significant lack of reliable sources that establish a consistent definition, let alone distinguish the sub-group from other potential groups and as such signifies a lack of the level of notability presupposed for the existence of a wikipedia article. For instance, there is a conflict between two documents which taken alone may be seen as reliable, but when put alongside one-another demonstrate a contradiction:
Otherkin are individuals who identify as "not entirely human."
...
It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk. Some include vampires under the label and others don't, but there have also been disagreements about the inclusion of most of the member groups as well as the label itself. Hosts and walk-ins are also included, though furries are right out.
Laycock, Joseph (2012). ""We Are Spirits of Another Sort": Ontological Rebellion and Religious Dimensions of the Otherkin Community". Nova ReUgio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 15 (3): 65–90. doi:10.1525/nr.2012.15.3.65. Retrieved 31 October 2016.
as compared to
This movement is perhaps best thought of as a subculture or community that exists almost entirely online, and is based around the philosophies and spiritual ontologies of individuals who consider themselves to be “other-than-human.”
...
Therianthropy: The belief that a person has a deep spiritual or mentalconnection to a certain animal . . . Therianthropes believe that they possess the spirit/soul of an animal or the mentality of an animals,either through reincarnation, mergeance, or other means. —therian.wikia.com, quoted from the first paragraph of the first section. The author also articulates the same core principle himself: “Therianthropy is a state of being in which the Therianthrope exists, lives, thinks, has instincts, and often acts as a non-human animal. Not like, but 'as'.”
Robertson, Venetia (2013). "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the OnlineTherianthropy Movement". Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. 16 (3): 7–30. doi:10.1525/nr.2013.16.3.7. Retrieved 31 October 2016.
which serves as a direct contradiction, demonstrating that even in academic sources, there is no consensus on the very existence of this group as the first (earlier published) treats one group as a sub-group of the other, and meanwhile the second source completely disregards any sort of distinction at all. Additionally from the second paper, a claim is made that may indicate this does not belong to be merged with furry but rather therianthropy instead:
While there are Therianthropes who engage in Furry Fandom, the two are distinct subcultures and both eagerly encourage this differentiation, the former keen to disassociate the perceived frivolity of fandom and role-play from the spiritual solemnity of their relationship with animals."
It also bears noting that the second paper cited is also the most recent, and lacks any and all references to the term "otherkin" altogether. It is suggestible that otherkin may simply be an alias or alternative moniker to therianthropy that is more "in vogue" for the constituent members, but mistaken for being distinct or dissimilar when the aforementioned papers provide strong evidence they are one and the same, sharing the same academic definition as well as having unclear super/sub-group classes. As such, it is strongly contestable as to the veracity of claims that these documents may be usable as the bedrock of a well-formed article, individually or even together. Lastly, there is the fact the first article sources therian.wikia.com, but it is important to note that this does not create authority within that page, and most importantly the author articulates the core principle independently and creates his own expression of it.
An important set of arguments arises from this. First is that if one were to reject the first article, the broad anti-furry statement in the second means this page belongs merged into therianthropy. If, on the other hand, the second were rejected then this page could be merged into furry. It is the position of this editor that it belongs in the former, as therianthropy bears most common ground with this page, as well as having the most background in the topics specific to this page - as compared to furry which would be more limiting.
Along with these citations, it is very important to note that the papers noted demonstrate there is no established convention among academics, as the latter of the two papers utilizes a different word while at the same time providing an identical definition. As such, this page on wikipedia is further pushed into the purview of the therianthropy page's content. It is also important to consistently remember that not only are the terms not consistent, but there is a distinct lack of documents which even provide sources which are not self-published or otherwise non-academic.
  • Additionally regarding reliable sources, news sources in this case do not establish "existence" as a distinct and actual social group, let alone sub-group, and typically have a very sensationalist perspective, such as citing specific extreme cases and including photographs that stir the reader (such as that of "Stalking Cat" [7] (in [1])), as well as esoteric claims without any corroboration from scientific sources or validation such as the claim
"At first it was one of those things that I freaked out over, and then after a while it was like ah... I'm just gonna play with my tail for a minute." Every so often, John says he gets mental shifts: "I could just be at home, and all of a sudden, click, the fox part of me just kind of comes out for a while, and then it just goes."[1]
and
Plenty of kids are obsessive, but for Jessie, her love of wolves became a lifestyle and a spiritual experience, including "phantom shifts," or episodes where she felt the physical characteristics of being a wolf.[2].
The articles also demonstrate alternative theories which do not lend support to existence but rather disparage it such as
"I could certainly see a case being made that I latched on to wolves because of some difficult times in my life," Jessie told me. "I saw family in them, I saw protection and familiarity, and I saw an escape from what I was dealing with in my life."[2]
and further sensationalizing
"I would prowl my room late at night as a wolf, usually when I was restless or agitated. This was comforting to put myself into another place. Whether this is mental or spiritual, I don't really know. I still do a version of this to this day, and I know it's felt like both. I'm diagnosed with depression and generalized anxiety, and there are many days where putting myself in 'wolf mind' helps to relax me."[2].
Some articles go as far as to sensationalize to the point of offering voice to entirely unverified claims which are also explainable by actual scientifically valid reasons such as
Magpie Hrafnsdottir, a young woman from Chicago, has extra ribs, right where wings would be, and sometimes she can feel those phantom wings ache. Something else is missing; Magpie has always believed she has a secret twin. "I could feel her," she says. "At age five, I angrily asked my mother where she was, demanded to see my twin sister."[3]
and
Think Tolkien, not Keebler; regal nature spirits, not hunchbacked shoemakers. Arhuaine, a 34-year-old British elf, claims to heal more quickly and age more slowly than humans. "I was still showing my ID in liquor stores at the age of 32," she says, "and following major surgery, even my doctors were amazed at the speed of my recovery and the fact that I needed no painkillers."[3].
Please reference
Much of these sources, aside from being sensational, are based in entirely unverified and unverifiable claims. Another key factor found to be lacking is there is no sustained or ongoing coverage - occasionally an article will appear in a random place with all of the previously noted hallmarks, but quickly again submerge.
Given these many facts, taken together it is clear this page should not have been created in the first place. For instance, the Therianthropy page contains not only the necessary context, but also contains all of the necessary context for the specifics of this article; furthermore, at the time of this pages' creation there was fewer sources available, and at this moment there are insufficient reliable sources to provide notability (even at its weakest) at a level to break from being the most extreme level of the fringes, as the vast majority of the works are original researched and/or self-published.
The closest this article should be allowed to remain in existence is for the fact that it may serve as a synonym and forwarder for one or more of many mental illnesses which may cause the symptoms exhibited by the prototypical person mentioned within the article (one or more of the following: claims about feeling of appendages, body/"species" dysmorphia, the various attributes of "species", claims of being numerous persons, as well as sexual claims) and the most important clinical lycanthropy, or those who've shepherded over its counter-productive evolution to the fictionalized state it remains in today.
One of the biggest problems as previously mentioned is the associations that otherkin subgroup members attempt to draw between themselves and transgender persons. This is extremely problematic due primarily to:
  • Transgender persons are notably marginalized in the mainstream, and suffer significant risks to their being. This is a state they're in, not by their choice - unlike otherkin subgroup members. This has significant impacts upon their ability to function in society; a fact that otherkin subgroup members do not have to deal with.
  • Such "existence" of transpersons is not in dispute in terms of their claims due to extensive medical literature, while otherkin subgroup members only exist in terms of claims and their "identification" as such; there is no medical foundation upon which to base any claims of "existence" in the sense meant by "transgender people exist". This is a key point of the self-marginalization I previously mentioned.
  • Spirital groups exist with coherent belief systems such as, but not limited to, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism etc. Notably, some schools of Buddhism lack a core "cannon" in terms of literature, but instead work through temple scholarship, learning from a teacher to a student. In this sense, the otherkin subgroup again falls flat due to a complete lack of unifying ideology, let alone "set schools". Each individual brings with them their own colourations and perspectives based largely upon other groups' belief systems.
  • Within a materialist perspective, one must argue that an "animal brian" is within the human head. This has never been observed and based on only basic medical understandings is impossible due to a number of factors, such as significant genetic differences. Furthermore, being able to trace genetic information necessary for this would lead one to a non-start as at no point is there a place for such an introduction - in a reproductively transmittable manner - to take place.
  • Within a psychological perspective, one must argue that an "animal mind" is within the human head. Again, this has never been actually observed and furthermore, cannot be due to significant differences in the structure of the brain's components between species, processing of information, instinct, to more esoteric psychological situations such as free-will, consciousness, and self-image. Merely having an incorrect self-image is itself not foundation, it is easily slotted into one of the many previously mentioned mental illnesses.
  • This lack of both secular and spiritual evidence for their existence lends to the identification of untrue and furthermore unverifiable statements made by these groups within this wiki page.
Tianmang 20:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC) (last revision: Tianmang (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • @KATMAKROFAN: There is now an alternate place which may be relevant to merge into as per Jarandhel's citation: Venetia Laura Delano Robertson. "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16, no. 3 (2013): 7-30. Full text available here: 1: "While there are Therianthropes who engage in Furry Fandom, the two are distinct subcultures and both eagerly encourage this differentiation, the former keen to disassociate the perceived frivolity of fandom and role-play from the spiritual solemnity of their relationship with animals." : specifically therianthropy. Tianmang (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A large amount of the language in the article is hinged upon the basis that this is a factually-based system based on some physically-provable (vis a vis transgender-like) or spiritual (of which no solid consensus exists, necessary for any sort of "religious" association, furthermore the first article [1] is paywalled and cannot be properly evaluated) condition; news sources can hardly provide any sort of backing for these types of situations, and those stories cited are sensationalist and opinion-based at the most modest of evaluation with no reference to actual verifiable evidence. Furthermore, there is no biological or even psychological basis (outside of blatant illness) in the citations you have provided, and some of them are duplicates of existing flawed references within the original article. Those which remain ([4], [5]) deal with sociological orders of a community based on a common theme, not unlike furry fandom, and is such just noise. This strongly evidences that it is, in fact, part of furry community and should be merged or be made non-existent in the form it currently is in altogether, through either a full on deletion or complete rewrite with no reference to any of the magical thinking that might be a trait merely associated with this subgroup. Tianmang (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the link that you cited, WP:PAYWALL, it says not to reject sources because they're paywalled. News sources are perfectly fine to report what people believe. The otherkin community is obviously notable if it is studied to this degree in academic sources, including academic presses. You can't reject a source simply because it's paywalled or doesn't come to the conclusions you want. Any content issues can be fixed through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need a third party to provide us with the text or meaning at the very least, that has not been done. You cannot put forth a paywalled article without a way to validate it and expect it to be accepted. Tianmang (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted a request to obtain either a copy or an impartial synopsis of the contents beyond the abstract for us to review. Tianmang (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you didn't try simply searching for the title yourself? Full Text via archive.org Jarandhel (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you retrieving that for me, but please do not assert what I did or did not do given I actually went out and attempted to locate it, and having failed filed to have it retrieved.Tianmang (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page is just ridiculous without an equally ridiculous social idiocy backing it. Pyrusca (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please maintain civility. The article is itself flawed, there's no need to make it personal in this manner. Tianmang (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: First of all, a bit of disclosure - In addition to being a long-time past editor of the Otherkin article here on Wikipedia, I am the owner/administrator of AnOtherWiki, a wiki about the otherkin community, and the current owner/administrator of Otherkin.net. I actually found out about this nomination for deletion in a rather unusual way - a vandal on my wiki going by the name "Nafokramkat, Destroyer of Planet Substub" moved one of the pages there to Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination) tonight. That seemed rather specific, so I took a look over here and found this AfD going on.
The problem with merging this article into the article about furry fandom is very simple: the otherkin community is not part of the furry fandom in any way. Individual members of the otherkin community may also be members of the furry fandom, but equally individual members of the otherkin community may be part of the Star Trek fandom, the Harry Potter fandom, the NASCAR fandom, etc. That does not make the community itself a subset of any of those fandoms. Merging this article into the article on furry fandom would do harm to readers understanding of both the otherkin community and the furry fandom by inaccurately portraying them as one thing. For more on the intersection of the two communities, I would suggest reading the following: 1
As for deleting it, I believe the notability of the subject is easily established. I can cite newspaper articles, magazine articles, academic articles, even documentaries on the subject. In multiple languages, from around the world. User NinjaRobotPirate already listed a few, but there are many more. The truth is, the otherkin community exists. It has existed for 26 years now and shows no sign of disappearing. It has a loosely defined set of beliefs associated with it. Any article about the existence of the community has to mention those beliefs. Doing so is encyclopedic, and is neither unverifiable nor what is meant by WP:BOLLOCKS even if you find the beliefs of the community to be bizarre and you do not personally agree with them. If any article about a community with bizarre beliefs were to be deleted from Wikipedia, surely we'd need to delete the articles on Mormonism, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, and many others - no?
Finally, I must object to the biased statement with which you conclude your nomination for deletion: "The closest this article should be allowed to remain in existence is for the fact that it may serve as a synonym and forwarder for one or more of many mental illnesses which may cause the symptoms exhibited by the prototypical person mentioned within the article". You've placed a strong emphasis on reliable sources and verifiability up until now - could you please cite any source which meets those standards in which a mental health professional states that otherkin as a group are suffering from a mental illness? Jarandhel (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, you've intentionally biased the conversation by means of your claims about the vandalism to the wiki which you manage. That is an external site and your claims have no bearing to the conversation here, they merely serve to introduce doubt to the legitimacy of the conversation itself, nothing more. Since you've already poisoned the well with this innuendo, I would highly recommend you submit to an arbitrator an unaltered record of the edit including IP, Username and/or Email address so it may be resolved by a third party and prevent such vandals from having an impact here.
  • The articles you mention have been previously refuted for various reasons. News articles only demonstrate isolated cases of significance, and are all local, opinion-pieces or puff pieces pertaining to a local novelty. The Vice piece specifically is itself based upon and written to convey a sensationalized perspective of the sub-group. Furthermore, the aforementioned list is itself full of these sorts of materials, there is very little beyond what is already cited; significant amounts of the material is irrelevant and only pertains to a broad set of viewpoints put forth by members of the sub-group, and do not actually deal with the group in and of itself. Much of this material could be distilled down into a variety of other pages, such as shamanism, christianity, buddhism, and even further beyond into general sociology due to the grossly broad nature of this archive.
  • This group is quite simply just an offshoot of Furrys, and plenty fringe at that. Media produced by and for a group itself is not reliable source material, nor are the aforementioned opinion columns or puff pieces in the local paper. These beliefs are themselves also, inconsistent; no group agrees on any set of beliefs and the group is highly fragmented and it is neigh impossible to pin down any sort of "cannon" to the beliefs other then the overarching self-assigned title. It isn't like when a church has a schism and two complete self-consistent groups break away and have fully formed dogmas. At best, one could put references to the subject within shamanism. It's not merely "hard" to believe, it is simply based on completely absurd claims as I've actually mentioned: identify as partially or entirely non-human, which serve little other then to invoke an association with people such as transgender. The key here is a bunch of people who are on the extreme end of the furry fandom, but simultaniously feel rejected by it and/or reject it for the hard-line stance one takes over the other. In the end, the group is one and the same, just little more then political undercurrents and tall tales.
  • Otherkin notability is itself an offshoot of furrys, they're gaining in notability, and this group is just a parallel development within that same group that becomes more visible with the hightened visibility of the origin and superset group. The only reason for such alienations, as previously reiterated, is to establish a distinguishment between the "hard-line" or "the rest". It certainly isn't uncommon for the groups to distinguish one-another within the overarching group, but this can be readily done within the furry page. The very citation you make establishes that these two things do in-fact belong together given that they are externally indistinguishable. The separate page's contents are egregiously erroneous enough to be significantly more harmful to the reader who expects to find some semblance of verifiable truth then speaking points a group has about themselves (going as far as to manage the page themselves).
  • Additionally, you've failed to establish the factuality of the article content given that it is itself written such that the claims of the participants are angled to be considered true, and as such continues to fit the very definition of bollocks. This is a hard line that must be maintained, and as of the current moment the article is nowhere near authoritative in its claims; nor can any of the materials provided thus far establish verifiability to them. This page, as such, currently only serves to provide the viewpoint of a single sub-group of a cultural sub-group, it is not encyclopaedic at all.
  • Mental illness is a very good explanation of all the claims: claims about feeling of appendages, body/"species" dysmorphia, the various attributes of "species", claims of being numerous persons, as well as sexual claims and the most important clinical lycanthropy. Each of these pages provide full details, and looking at any of the otherkin material it is readily apparent where each belongs. A doctor is not going to go out of their way to address a blanket term when they can deal with each symptom individually in a therapy session. As such, asking for a doctor to address a sub-group individually has multiplicity ramifications to how all groups of mental illnesses must be treated in that each and every group with irrational beliefs or other symptoms must be addressed individually through the academic process. This is not how medical literature works, it works through the addressing of specific symptoms and syndromes.
Selected background from each page for reference:
I have struck through this secondary reference due to coming under attack when it had already been declared a dead point down below, and struck out up-above. Tianmang (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or procedure which would allow the administrator of an unaffiliated wiki to report vandalism of their wiki by a Wikipedia user and have any action taken here. If I'm wrong about that, please point me to where I would do so. The evidence is easily provided: 1 2 3 4 5. I thought it was important to note what brought me here, as it is pertinent to my own biases in this AfD discussion.
That very statement is made in bad faith. You allege that a wikipedia user did this edit without any actual backing evidence. The title of the page is publicly visible, and any individual on the internet is able to glean it and then turn around and do this. For the record, I will disclose my IP in fragment form since it is now readily apparent you're throwing out an actual accusation (...report vandalism of their wiki by a Wikipedia user ...): 162.253.xxx.xxx . I encourage administrators to validate this. (accidentally away in earlier edit) Tianmang (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally be much more interested in administrators validating the IP of the user present in this discussion whose username (KATMAKROFAN) is actually an anagram of the username of the vandal on my wiki (Nafokramkat), if indeed there is a wikipedia policy that would allow checkuser under these circumstances. Jarandhel (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an extremely bad faith gesture, given that a name alone is not itself evidence. What your comment amounts to is character assassination with no actual evidence. I would recommend you to refrain from further attempts to characterise people in this thread based on what is nothing more then speculation and conjecture. If you believe there is actual reason, there are processes and people you can utilize to have your concerns addressed - attempting to address them here continues to poison debate on the subject at hand. Tianmang (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: Please read the policy which is also incidentally cited at the top of the edit page. This entire segment above is disruptive behaviour and should be removed so as to not further taint the conversation. Tianmang (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now, as for your individual refutations. I don't believe there is a consensus yet that the news articles cited are evidence of only "isolated cases of significance". You claim that is so, but again we are talking about news articles from around the world stretching back decades. Nor are the news articles the only articles available on this subject. Again, both myself and NinjaRobotPirate have provided links to other sources. If more are needed, Academia.edu has two separate tags for academic articles on this subject: 1 2
We're working toward a consensus, and there is most certainly no consensus that there is any sort of agreement to the legitimacy of the articles. Please do not introduce meaning to my words or innuendos, this is again bad faith on your part to argue the facts and statements rather then twist them around to give them meaning which is most certainly not there. Significant numbers of the articles are provided by "independent contributors", this is an aggregation point and has no actual credibility given the fact anybody can add tags. Furthermore, many of the articles cited are just rehashes of the same previously cited articles. Further research into the sources, and of notability, the citing party - much of the works constitutes original research and is not in a peer-reviewed station of any sort.
As for your claim that the article has been "written such that the claims of the participants are angled to be considered true", that would be a case for re-writing the article but not for deleting it. But I would ask: exactly what language you would prefer? The article currently speaks very clearly about the *beliefs* and *claims* of the community and makes no assertions of truth with regard to them, even going out of its way to state that particular beliefs have not been substantiated.
At the minimum the page should be merged into the furry page, since it has no substance beyond what is previously been repeatedly stated. If it is to exist, it must not make assertions of truth, claims about any unifying idea beyond the extremely broadest definition (which would be a consensus issue), acknowledgement of its existence in terms of being a fandom. However, I do not agree that it is even warranting of its own page at all, since it still boils down to being a fan subgroup.
Quoting the Spirits of Another Sort article: "Another example of type maintenance occurs in an article by Th'Elf, who writes of Otherkin:
It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk. Some include vampires under the label and others don't, but there have also been disagreements about the inclusion of most of the member groups as well as the label itself. Hosts and walk-ins are also included, though furries are right out." Jarandhel (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The noted quote indicates that it is itself disputed, and cites a number of other groups which have wiki pages individually among others. Furthermore, this is a quoted statement from a third party, not an assertion by the article itself, which does nothing to lend credibility nor asserts truth. Furthermore, this article is itself topic focused solely upon religious implications, invalidating significant portions of the text within the page as it is. Removing it would reduce it to little more then a stub, which would be perfect for merging with another page in a similar vein; however given it is generally understood by the source to not be compatible with furry, it would need to be found a new home which is more appropriate (I might suggest Paganism, but that would itself be another topic of consensus). As such, this lone article which only establishes a basic analysis of the group as a theoretical religious one, does not itself provide sufficient foundation to maintain this page as a separate entity. Tianmang (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another source: Venetia Laura Delano Robertson. "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16, no. 3 (2013): 7-30. Full text available here: 1: "While there are Therianthropes who engage in Furry Fandom, the two are distinct subcultures and both eagerly encourage this differentiation, the former keen to disassociate the perceived frivolity of fandom and role-play from the spiritual solemnity of their relationship with animals." Jarandhel (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tangent to the otherkin subgroup, and if anything provides evidence that otherkin should be merged into therianthropy due to their similarity and direct relartionship in nature, appearance and practise. Please read previous comment on the first citation. These articles do not establish sufficient cause for otherkin to be a separate and distinct page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianmang (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of merging otherkin into therianthropy is a lot like the idea of merging an article on the United States into an article on Kansas. Therianthropy is a sub-group within the otherkin community, specifically composed of those who identify as animals/beasts (as opposed to elves, angels, etc.) Otherkin is the larger umbrella term for everyone who identifies as non-human, regardless of variety. If a merger were to take place, it would make *far* more sense the other way around. Jarandhel (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the literature itself that you have cited makes no distinguishment let alone super/sub-classing them. Furthermore, the page itself articulates many of the shortcomings of the original page eloquently and with proper citations and statements which themselves apply directly to the otherkin page. As such it is clearly either a directly comparable (equivalent) or subclass of Therianthropy. The very opening sentence provides the necessary background: The most well known form of therianthropy is found in stories concerning werewolves.. This establishes the fact that this is not a narrow concept, only that a common misconception such as the one made in your assertion. The correct metaphor is merging a small separate state lacking governance into an established country with the faculties to support its members, as is what this would be analogous to. Tianmang (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the first quote from Spirits of Another Sort by Laycock, AGAIN: "It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk." I believe that firmly establishes the super-class/sub-class relationship, in what we have already established is a reliable source. Jarandhel (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So now you've highlighted there is in fact a contradiction between the two articles, wherein the first I have already addressed and I won't repeat myself, and the second does not even make mention of the "otherkin" group - lumping them all in together. How could this topic have its own wiki page if even the academics have not actually agreed upon the specifics of the super-class/sub-class relationship? One single source does not an article make, let alone an entire collection of people in a unique and distinguished manner. This at best remains a footnote in in the therianthropy page; Again, this is simply not significant enough to warrant a whole page for the concept, let alone having it identified uniquely. Furthermore, your argument is circular, you're just jumping back and forth between the articles and cherry picking single phrases which back up your own viewpoints without taking anything into account with context, and conveniently ignoring how the two articles articulate separate statements. Meanwhile, one page is fully formed and well written, while the other - this otherkin page - lacks substantial substance enough to stand upon its own two feet. Tianmang (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further strengthening the position is the second article itself which provides this direct contradiction: Therianthropy: The belief that a person has a deep spiritual or mentalconnection to a certain animal . . . Therianthropes believe that they possess the spirit/soul of an animal or the mentality of an animals,either through reincarnation, mergeance, or other means. —therian.wikia.com, quoted from the first paragraph of the first section. Furthermore the author articulates the same core principle himself: “Therianthropy is a state of being in which the Therianthrope exists, lives, thinks, has instincts, andoften acts as a non-human animal. Not like, but 'as'.”. This flies directly in the face of the given original otherkin page introductory segment as well as the first article. Tianmang (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, please refrain from laying on the shift key when typing words such as AGAIN; if your point is refuted, then it is proper course to provide a refutation in return or move on. The point of the discussion is to remain cool in order to arrive at a consensus, and antagonistic behaviour will not yield useful results to this debate.
Your source quotes therian.wikia.com as its source of information. Allow me to do the same: "There are many different types of Otherkin, but some of them include: Therian (Earth based animals), Dragonkin, Vampirekin, Faekin, Merkin (Mermaids/ Mer people), Alienkin, Fictionkin, and Factkin." http://therian.wikia.com/wiki/Otherkin Again, as I've already explained to you and as was stated extremely clearly in the Laycock source, therianthropes are a subset of otherkin. There is no "contradiction" between that point in these articles, you are simply misinterpreting them. Even simply looking at the DMOZ.org Otherkin Category will show therianthropes are a subcategory of otherkin. Jarandhel (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That page is a user published and thus unreliable, wiki. The author of the paper corroborates the sentence found on that page with his own statement and provides an actual analysis, that does not make the page itself authoritative; the effect of such a claim would make a lot of highly questionable sources authoritative without any actual oversight via peer-review or proper sourcing. Using an example from an non-authoritative site is fine, it does not however create the basis needed here. DMOZ is again, an aggregation point. Please stick with actual articles which follow the reliable source guidelines. You need reliable sources, not self-published or lists of pages, it does not provide verifiability; DMOZ has great potential to contain significant amounts of fringe material that would not be found on wikipedia, and even its hierarchical methods have been criticized for lacking expression, and is furthermore maintained by editors not unlike wikipedia, but lacking policies such as neutrality toward topics.
The contradiction is plain as day, please provide actual evidence to back your point. The contradiction is in the very fact that one group is claimed to be superset to the other, and then it is directly superseded by a new definition of one of the containing members which is identical. This is not a "misinterpretation", this is self-evident in the articles themselves - read them. At this point, the only argument you are providing is outlined in this essay which violates neutral perspective, verifiability and brings in significant original research from unreliable sources. Again, I am sorry, but the contradiction and the evidence is overwhelming that this is not an independent topic worthy of its own wikipedia page, but in fact a sub-component at best of another - notably Therianthropy. Tianmang (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've already provided a WP:RS that very clearly states therianthropes are a type of otherkin, the Laycock article. You are ignoring that source in favor of your personal interpretation of the Robertson article supposedly providing an "identical" definition for therianthropy, similar to the way that you previously claimed the Otherkin article should point to various mental disorders based on your reading of the definitions for those disorders as identical. This is, again, a violation of WP:SYN.
This is clearly not the case, you are the one who is producing synthesis (in the most literal of manners, by synthesizing points from multiple articles to produce a position that supports your own perspective, by ignoring points of one article which disagree with your proposed claims), by choosing to disregard the very definition provided by a reputable source which brings into contest your own definition. This is not an interpretation as you continue to insist despite being unable to actually refute, as I have refuted one article with another which establishes not only the claim you make is not accepted convention, but that there are entirely different ones which mirror meaning in its entirety (which incidentally actually meets measure of significance even at the level WP:NFRINGE); I have accomplished this without resorting to saying "one document is correct, but only in-part" as your arguments are prone to do (Claiming the group cannot be merged into therianthrope due to a small portion of one article which conveniently says that (itself unable to provide sufficient underlying content to support an article), about what you posit is a sub-group, but then disregarding the contradictory statement which works against your claim, which I have highlighted repeatedly due to its inherit importance. Please review it, as you are mistaking comparison of two articles - with no omissions of convenience - for synthesis, where I would be combining two articles language in a manner that only you have demonstrated throughout this entire debate). It bears specifically reviewing an important fact as to the second article - which deals exclusively with therianthropy, but not in any regard otherkin - makes points which you attempt to utilize in your arguments. Given the contradictory nature of the definitions I have cited, the reason why your argument is impossible to make without first rectifying this impasse is with the one contradiction, the two articles become incompatible. Also, significantly, your claim is that a statement drawn about what you allege to be a subgroup - that is they "are not furry", cannot be attributed to the super-set. This as such does not discount otherkin being merged into furry, only that therianthropy.
Finally regarding this paragraph you have posted: I have already dropped my previous argument case, yet you're continuing to dredge it up - out of context - and using it as a means to distract from the argument at hand.
There is no contradiction between the two articles. One focuses on the therian subgroup, the other on the broader otherkin community which contains the therian subgroup. You, and you alone, are making the conclusion, not stated by any source and therefor WP:SYN, that the definition given for therians is "identical" to the definition for otherkin, despite every source including the one you have decided is somehow superior stating that therianthropes believe they are specifically non-human ANIMALS. As for your statement that a statement about a subgroup cannot be attributed to the super-set, I believe it would help you to consider the formal logic: If A is a part of B, and A is not a part of C, then B is not a part of C. A concrete example: If Kansas is a part of the United States, and Kansas is not a part of South America, then the United States is not a part of South America. Jarandhel (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First by the rules of formal logic, you cannot state that an attribute of I which is applicable to B necessarily applies to superset A which it is a member of (it would be necessary for the attribute I to apply to A to be said applicable to B, as attributes of the super-set by definition apply to all members, including members which are a subset thereof - not vice versa);
Actually, yes, you can. Set inclusion is a transitive relationship. This is easily demonstrated using mathematics: If you have a set X which includes the numbers 1,3,5,8,and 9, then you know that this set is not part of the set of odd numbers because you know that one of its members, 8, is not odd. Since therianthropes are members of the set otherkin, and therianthropes are not part of the set furries, then otherkin cannot be a part of the set furries. And even without the Robertson article, you still have the Laycock article stating "furries are right out". Jarandhel (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly do not actually understand what that actually means. Please review the examples, and you will see that the subset is a more constricted of the superset (which may consist of many constricted subsets while not necessarily having all of their specific properties - only having a broad enough definition which may include all of them - which cause them to be incompatible with one-another directly). For instance: therianthropes are the set of all people who believe in the aforementioned systems of thought. Otherkin are a subgroup who specifically believe in "paranormal" or otherwise "fantasy" creature identities, that much we can agree upon. Now, this does not go in the opposite direction, as therianthropes do not necessarily believe this - they are a more open set, and are thus capable of including the subset of otherkin. If we reverse this relationship, then the more narrow does believe cannot contain the broader might believe, as it would violate the laws of set theory I have just outlined. Please stick to valid arguments. Tianmang (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
your example sheds exactly zero light upon the situation at hand - it is irrelevant and once again distracting from the topic at hand (this example I have provided, however, is quite topical given it applies directly to your erroneous example previously cited). If you refute the contradiction, you merely posit that this page belongs merged into furry due to the aforementioned raw logic. Furthermore, you are once again twisting my words as to one being superior - I am stating they are in conflict; the fact that one term is superior comes from the fact that there is significantly more coverage and thus establishing convention. Please actually review my argument, next time bring citable proof. The contradiction comes from how the groups are composed - two terms for the same group - I have demonstrated this irrefutably. The onus is now on you to demonstrate otherwise, or demonstrate significance that otherkin is in-fact the accepted superset.
No, you have not demonstrated this irrefutable. This is your personal claim. You have MULTIPLE WP:RS telling you that therianthropes are a type of otherkin. That directly refutes your claim that the terms have identical meanings. The sources have already been cited. The onus is on you to provide a source that states the same claim, and to show why that source should be accepted over multiple sources that specifically say otherwise. Jarandhel (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. There is one WP:RS which establishes the relationship. The others making mere mention of the word - in isolation - is not a contradiction to my argument. Furthermore, my argument is actually again irrefutable given the evidence you have provided. If you have more which demonstrates a subset/superset relationship which differs from the one which I have demonstrated (and again a single word in isolation does not a definition make), and actually can reach the level of multiple documents disproving my statement - do so. For the moment, you have yet to bear the brunt of evidence. Also and of great importance is saying it over and over and over and over does not make it so. Tianmang (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A single more claim of WP:SYN about my argument, which I have repeatedly demonstrated it is not, and I will file the complaint; you're not contributing any information whatsoever at this point, you're being uncivil in an argument.
File whatever claims you want. You are ignoring the direct statements of multiple WP:RS in favor of your personal theory that otherkin is either a subset of therianthropy or "a fork of therianthropy in order to dodge accountability for some of the more esoteric beliefs" based purely on your reading of the definition given by Robertson. That's exactly the same kind of improper complex synthesis WP:SYN you were previously engaged in with regard to your personal theory that otherkin are suffering from various mental illnesses based on your reading of the definitions of those mental illnesses, and I am very confident that any admin reading this discussion will both see that and see that I have not been uncivil to you despite you throwing around claims of bad faith from the moment I first posted. Jarandhel (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, since you haven't read and understood the argument - I demonstrated a contradiction among the WP:RS, and you have not provided multiple defintions to refute. Citing multiple documents utilizing a word merely states that the word is in use, not its relationship - which I have established.
As for the filing, it shall be done given the remarkable levels of hostility that continue, as well as the latest batch of non-argument arguments. I strongly suspect you are in for a very unpleasant surprise given that - from the very beginning - you have muddied the water by making false accusations without evidence about an editor in inappropriate fashion, using sarcasm, refusing to argue the evidence and instead trying to use WP:SYN (or just attacking people as you did when you first entered with your accusation which bears absolutely NO relevance to the conversation), using articles as if they contain material which they do not, etc. However, that is not for me to decide; I'll let them look it over for themselves - I'm confident enough given I am still filing it after collecting together the information necessary, and this is hardly an opaque situation, that I most certainly will not be pained by these proceedings. Tianmang (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further backing up my position, here's yet another citation from the article on therianthropy
This movement is perhaps best thought of as a subculture or community that exists almost entirely online, and is based around the philosophies and spiritual ontologies of individuals who consider themselves to be “other-than-human.” (page 8)
Tianmang (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as a type of otherkin therians DO consider themselves to be other-than-human, just like every other form of otherkin. The very next line goes on to state: "Therians, for short, are persons who feel such a profound connection with a non-human animal that they feel this animal is an integral part of their identity." It is clearly NOT intended to cover those who consider themselves other-than-human but not animal, such as elves, fairies, angels, etc. Again, therian is the subset, a term for a specific type of otherkin who consider themselves animal. Jarandhel (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By your own claims of subset/superset (albeit correctly utilized), would it not also be so that anything then which is a multicellular organisms of considerable size - such as these other entities you cite - are not animals then? Mythological or not, they certainly aren't bacteria. Furthermore, you don't get to establish convention by saying it is so - my prior evidence again demonstrates a longer standing and robust convention which includes all of the claims you make about otherkin. Once again, there is no refute or rebuttal in your words, just attempts to argue semantics. Tianmang (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"There is a not a finite list of Otherkin "types," but some of the most common include faeries and elves, vampires, therianthropes (individuals who identify with animals and shapeshifters), angels and demons, and "mythologicals" (legendary creatures such as dragons and phoenixes). What is actually signified by these categories is often vague and highly subjective. For example, Lupa identifies as a therianthrope, specifically a wolf" Laycock, We Are Spirits of Another Sort again, already cited, and the second time this definition is clearly given in that text. Full text, again: 1
The second article listed, again and for the last time - cites very specifically a definitive definition which completely overrules the claim of the article's text by including the very people that were claimed by this secondary - redundant - page. Repeating yourself with the tone and attitude an article which I have already read is once-again uncivil. You are not bringing new material to light, and again are chery picking your words which backup a position which has already been thoroughly refuted. This article fails to establish convention, as it is followed by a later document - within the very same journal - which features a different word and an identical definition, which incidentally through the very page which I am proposing to merge into, has significant conventional attachment to the definition which is shared.
"This chapter explores how, by claiming the animal as an aspect of their lived subjectivity, Therians (animal-human Otherkin) enact the simultaneous death of the animal and the human, while paradoxically reinforcing a generic and romanticised concept of the animal." Page XXI-XXII of book Animal Death, edited by Jay Johnston and Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, and published in 2013 by Sydney University Press. Text: 2
More cherry picking. You've found a single section in a book which deals with materials not pertaining to the existence of the group as separate and distinct; this does not provide the necessary definition to establish a definitive relationship in the explicit manner the second article articulates. Furthermore, this article pre-dates the second article, thus in academics has clearly not established this as an accepted convention. This topic has not even been researched by reputable sources sufficiently to establish it independently of the therianthrope page for the purposes of wikipedia. If you are to choose to put forward this item, you must establish that it is stating in no-uncertain terms a contradiction to my own claims - which is to the nature of the group, how it is actually distinguishable from and super-set to the therianthrope group. Merely referring to it, a single word, is insufficient, since it does nothing to rectify the contradiction I have established.
"The Otherkin are a loosely affiliated group of like-minded individuals who have formed a virtual online community. Their shared belief is that some people are, either partially or completely, non-human. To quote, ‘Otherkin is a collective noun for an assortment of people who have come to the somewhat unorthodox, and possibly quite bizarre, conclusion that they identify themselves as being something other than human.’ Further, they are ‘an alternative community that accepts everything from therianthropes to extraterrestrial fae,’ the former being ‘a deity or creature combining the form or attributes of a human with those of an animal,’ and the latter being an alternative term for fairies." Danielle Kirby, "Alternative Worlds: Metaphysical Questing and Virtual Community Amongst the Otherkin," in Through a Glass Darkly: Reflections on the Sacred, ed. Frances Di Lauro, (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2006) 275-287. Text: 3
This [[single article, does not provide sufficient backing (even taken together with the other eligible document) for this page to exist, and given it is - again - in stark contrast to the established conventions, while simultaneously is not academic in quality given the simple fact it is not from a peer-reviewed publication and lacks any sort of academic rigours and authority; going so far as to be a very likely candidate of self-published work. Furthermore, it fails to definitively provide the necessary level of authority necessary to overcome fringe's specific requirements.
Do I need to keep going? Jarandhel (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have yet to establish all of notability, consistency as well as verifiability in a sustained (and in the case of news material sustained) manner, instead giving undue weight to mostly one source which fails to establish convention that you are pushing for. This is again is not sufficient. As the previous articles have been refuted due to the aforementioned articles ineligibility by a contradiction of the claims you make (and this will remain so despite your insistence otherwise which lacks any actual argument beyond baseless accusation, which I will stress is in the best interest of the debate to overcome rather then continue to rally behind, since circular-arguing this irrefutable statement (given the current supporting evidence) services absolutely zero useful function), suspect sources, and also your attempts at synthesis while at the same time claiming that I am interpreting what is not there - when it is so explicitly and demonstratively clear - is again further evidence if incivility on your part.
Furthermore, and at this impasse in the conversation, as you have not paid attention to my continuous citations: you insist on making personal attacks, innuendos, and sarcasm upon myself and other editors who are for non-keep votes, which you have even to this moment still not recanted upon, despite having been explicitly cited each and every time. This is the last time I will address your incivility directly, the next step I will take is to file a complaint about your consistently adversarial conduct toward this debate which is well-founded. Let me be absolutely clear, this is a debate, not a soapbox for fringe theories or baseless accusations upon perfectly valid tactics. Tianmang (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for your assertions that "mental illness is a very good explanation of all the claims", again I would ask - do you have any WP:RS that states that the otherkin community, as a group, suffer from any of these mental illnesses? Or that these illnesses are prevalent within the otherkin community at any greater rate than the general populace? You claim that "Each of these pages provide full details, and looking at any of the otherkin material it is readily apparent where each belongs." But you are not a medical professional able to offer that diagnosis, and even if you were it would be original research unless you can cite a WP:RS which associates the group and the illness. Jarandhel (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, since you apparently did not see it, I stated quite clearly that it is not the duty of scientists nor doctors to comb through each and every subgroup in existence making claims based in mental illness to identify specific illness traits. I have cited each and every claim above with the relevant page which deals with the context of the illness(es) which produce the consequent effect i the person, each of which is backed by reputable sources. Mental illnesses, like all illnesses, is addressed in terms of symptoms and tests of validity, not by a self-identified group.
Tianmang (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason that diagnosis is done by trained medical professionals rather than amateurs with a list of symptoms. Moreover, Wikipedia policy *specifically* requires that claims such as this be directly sourced rather than synthesized. See WP:SYN, specifically the example given of an improper complex synthesis: "The second paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the second paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source would be needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Jarandhel (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly concede that given what you have stated is valid, but that does not bear in the existence of otherkin seeing as there is no actual diagnostic evidence except beyond what I have already stated; and having stated quite clearly which you have chosen to ignore that these descriptions are based upon the claims made by so-called otherkin persons themselves. That being said, that only means this page ought to be deleted outright or merged into furry rather then simply replaced with a place-holder as I had previously suggested was plausible. Tianmang (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the reliable sources found by NinjaRobotPirate. Multiple RS show notability per WP:GNG and with them, an ability to write at least a modest verifiable article. That is all that matters at AfD. --Mark viking (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subculture exists and is notable enough to be written about. Some aspects of it may be covered by more specific articles, but it is still a valid general topic. . Content can be dealt with by other means than deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier it has been suggested to merge, what are your thoughts on this? Tianmang (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that can be discussed separately , but it seems to be absurd to merge a topic about a group of myths to an article about a modern cult or group(s) of people or thinking or pretending some aspect of similar myths is in some sense real, or real to them. These are two different topics, with very different sources. Merging them is confusing to the understanding of the modern topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before anyone gets the idea because of my username and my edits in the article -- no, I'm not otherkin and have no positive feelings toward them. Now, I've (...painstakingly) gone over the article in the past several times to make sure all statements are backed by published sources (since it's a controversial topic and supporters like to come and insert their original research every now and then), I've looked at the texts myself and judged the publishers' credibilities (any recent edits don't count, I've been inactive). Since there has been a number of reliable sources that discuss the topic in more than a mention then that's actually all we need to have an article on it, according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Case closed, really. People are reaching for reasons to delete the article because the topic is silly. That's not a valid reason to delete it, we have articles on plenty of other strange beliefs. Also I wouldn't support merging with the other mentioned articles since it's a distinct topic and distinct community. EDIT: I have a "reputation of abuses"? lack of understanding of policy? What kind of flying nonsense is this, nominator? I've been here for years, have a ton of edits on wildly different topics, have contributed in different areas, I know our policies very well. You're the one who's brand new here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems reasonably referenced, though some of the publications are from slightly far-out imprints; it'd be nice to see more news sources, though I appreciate the concern about sensational coverage. With regards to merging, Why be human when you can be otherkin links the concept to therianthropy and lycanthropy, but not to furry, and I tend to agree - for therians, and otherkin, it's more a matter of belief in being, not appreciation. "Therians" as a group could be seen as similar to "otherkin", while "therianthropy" is similar to "otherkin-ness"; but I still think we'd end up with two articles - one about the metaphysical concept, another about a modern-day subculture adhering to that concept. It might be more reasonable to use otherkin as the subculture article. However, I'd hesitate to make such a merge without strong backing from reliable sources, just as I'd hesitate to merge bronies to furries (compare [16] and [17]). There's a bright line, in name at least, between those with a connection to "animals known to have existed" and "mythological or spiritual beings" - e.g. those identifying as draconic or mermaids tend to use the term "otherkin" rather than "therian", even if they are also people who have an association with furry fandom. There has been some research aimed towards distinguishing these overlapping groups, which I summarized a while ago at Mixed-venue survey delineates furries, therians, otherkin and Survey suggests furries 'think differently', but aren't crazy GreenReaper (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

  • Keep. The references in the article and presented in this debate adequately show notability, by indepth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is no need to merge to the suggested target, they are overlapping but both are notable. It is wholly irrelevant whether otherkin are "real", we document all kinds of culture and interests. The nominator wants some kind of biological/physiological validation, thoroughly missing the point of the article - it is not to assert that people are genuinely dragons or clouds or whatever, it is to document that they have apparently seriously made such claims and that this has been taken note of by others. Fences&Windows 18:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Khansari[edit]

Mohsen Khansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Per nom. Not notable and no reliable refs. Wgolf (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An independent search doesn't yield much either to establish notability either. TushiTalk To Me 18:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially an unsourced BLP per my earlier PROD. JbhTalk 18:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the subject does suposidly play in a professional league (the Persian Gulf Pro League is listed as professional) but can find no sources of him on the internet or on the usual websites (football.eu, soccerway, even trasnfermarket) and I'm almost inclined to believe that this article is a hoax. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG as well as possibly being a hoax. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as hoax Spiderone 18:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if this isn't a hoax, the article does not appear to meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darbhanga Aviations[edit]

Darbhanga Aviations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It existed, but can't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been tagged for notability for more than 8 years, hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Subject is a airline that was defunct in 1962 and still it manages to get coverage in recent years 1, 2, 3. That itself clears any doubt on its notability. Also given that it is a Indian airline of 1950s-60s and based in a small town, older sources will not be available despite the subject being notable (see WP:INDAFD). Google books search link also provides many answers. Pratyush (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it existed and operated commercial flights then it is notable the fact the article is wrongly named (should be Darbhanga Aviation and needs a serious re-write shouldnt be a reason to delete it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination convinced by helpful comments above. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABM Galaxy F.C.[edit]

ABM Galaxy F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable football club. JohnTombs48 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 19:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2016 (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 01:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Johnson-Missievitch[edit]

Louise Johnson-Missievitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. DrKay (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 07:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is mentioned in passing in a memoir of another person. No reliable source mention at all really. Not even a very clear claim to fame.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Phipps[edit]

Matt Phipps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of a very interesting sounding young documentary maker and photographer, but not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. I can find no significant coverage of him or his work online from WP:Reliable sources. There's blog coverage of Skaters Atlas, but no Gnews or Gbooks hits, no interviews or profiles in WP:RS. WP:TOOSOON, it looks like. Wikishovel (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2016 (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) 11:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Gurgle[edit]

Somerset Gurgle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find RS to show the notability of this topic. The one reference given doesn't have anything directly relating to the topic of the article. It was prodded soon after creation, back in 2011. — Rod talk 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unsubstantiated with both convincing information and sources, nothing at all actually close to what would be needed for significance as a article. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this should be deleted because I'm currently working on adding references and expanding the page, as are a couple of others. Please wait until the article has been expanded before deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeRandomUserGuy (talk • contribs) 13:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of scholarly sources. If this "dates back to the 17th century" I would expect to see a huge range of sources easily available. They aren't. Blythwood (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this has to be a hoax. "Somerset Gurgler's Association" yields absolutely nothing; not even on Facebook, Twitter or Youtube! Even if this somehow does exist, it's certainly not a widespread tradition as it would've been mentioned somewhere. Spiderone 16:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bevan Lawrence[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bevan Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. While this was deleted in a discussion back in 2008, it was not recreated until 2015 -- so I don't consider it eligible for G4. That said, the basic notability claim here is no different than it was the first time, and the sourcing provided to support it isn't appreciably stronger. He's still just the founder of a lobby group, but does not inherit notability on that basis if he isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG -- but the sourcing here isn't reliable source coverage. There's one user-generated video sharing site where anybody can add video clips of anything they want to create self-published "sourcing" for; one transcript of an interview in which he's a soundbite-giver and not the subject; one piece of primary source content that he wrote for the website of an organization he's directly affiliated with (but a person gets an article by being the subject of the sources, not the author of them); and one book that mentions him but isn't substantively enough about him to carry notability by itself as the article's only acceptable source. As I don't have deep database access to older Australian media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can locate the depth of sourcing necessary to actually get him over WP:GNG -- but the base notability claim is still not strong enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 07:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable lawyer and activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep. The subject is demonstrably a notable public advocate in Western Australia, though he has largely withdrawn from activism since helping to defeat the Hawke federal government's Australia Card legislation in 1987 (over which a double dissolution election was held); and bringing about the royal commission which discredited the WA Inc state government and resulted in the jailing of two former state premiers and a deputy premier. Because of the scarcity of online references in that period, his notability must mainly be reinforced by print media, which I undertake to explore. Australia's National Library has not digitised most newspapers later than the mid-1950s but does carry later editions of The Canberra Times which in 1989 ran this article on the inaugural public meeting of People for Fair and Open Government. The local authority of Nedlands has published this record of his separate sporting and civic contributions. I will search out further relevant citations from The West Australian, The Sunday Times (Western Australia) and other publications of the day. These will mostly be checkable globally by those with expensive paid subscriptions to the papers, though I can undertake to maintain copies for verification. This is a good example of worthy encyclopedic content which largely predates the internet and can too easily be swept away. Bjenks (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 'non notable lawyer' is through and through outright rubbish in the context of understanding the events of WA Inc JarrahTree 05:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is clear that WP:GNG is satisfied, including coverage in non-local newspapers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - satisfies WP:GNG - notable public advocate. Dan arndt (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable activist + for role in WA Inc so satisfies WP:GNG Hughesdarren (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, significant activist. I have two books in my library that discuss Lawrence's work and aren't cited here, and it's hardly like they're the only ones. Deletion is not cleanup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just Juice (rapper)[edit]

Just Juice (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unconvinced this person is notable. He has 3 albums, but there are no chart rankings for them. Thus, I am suggesting it be deleted. Pyrusca (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as everything listed here is entirely unconvincing from the information to the sources, it literally shows there is no substance and none should be expected when there have been no actual improvements. SwisterTwister talk 17:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was the creation of a SPA with no other edits, bringing WP:COI into play. Ravenswing 19:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This artist nets 70 thousand plays per month on spotify alone. He is clearly a budding rapper as shown by his collaborations. Additional information is expected in the near future. Lashiing 17:09, 03 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. No other criterion of WP:NMUSIC is satisfied. --Michig (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5pm[edit]

5pm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

G11 worthy material Pyrusca (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- was recently deleted via PROD for lack of notability. This new version does not show any notability either. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) It wasn't deleted for "lack of notability", it was deleted because no one removed the PROD.  (2) As per this diff, you prodded the article.  Since WP:N is defined outside of Wikipedia and WP:N is not a content guideline, the reason for the prod was not policy based.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this has literally been deleted 5 times including for G11 so this seriously should not have been restarted, as the current information and sources are still advertising. I am also concerned with the fact the user specifically contested the PROD a month after, suggesting it's persistent and avid advertising, because not only considering all of these deletions, they actually moved this advertisement to mainspace themselves with "will improve in time"; if this has been deleted numerous times before, it should've been salted with this last time as it is, because 2 G11 deletions in the past 9 years is self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a WP:Refund does not suggest "persistent and avid advertising" to most editors.  The count of deletions here means nothing, especially when you've reported two G11s when there was only one, and that one was by an administrator who is no longer an administrator, by Arbcom decision.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides what software ends up in this list or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software ? I was just trying to keep the list complete. I used many project management tools over time, some of them listed there, including 5pm. I am not an expert though. If you want to help improve the article, change the language, etc. - please do. By keeping the list of project management software up to date and including in it tools tested by time, we are making that list more usable to the others. Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? NancyJeanGF (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable: Potential references include some trivial reviews and listings only. NancyJeanGF, WP is is intended to be useful as an encyclopedia , not as a list of computer software. That's one of our core principles: WP:NOT. The article Comparison of project management software, is limited to those programs notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. It is certainly possible that some ofthem should not be included,andthe way to getthem off the list is for the article to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare with your decision to declare this article ready for mainspace and to give it its current name, [18].  Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Trivial reviews and listings only"? I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I tried to include only solid sources. This is not the first article that I created and that was deleted. When I was researching analytics software, I wrote about Mixpanel and Localytics. Those are direct competitors and I thought it is only fair to cover both. Localytics article was deleted - somebody decided it was "lacking notoriety". Today a simple search shows that the company has about 250 employees and is mentioned as a solid growing business in Boston. I bet if I try to recreate the article - I will be accused of reviving it, as in this case. I do not know who created the previous 5pm article, and it sounds like they did, since it was deleted before. After all, 5pm has been in business for over eight years, according to their website. I did not use it for so long, but it as good as any other web software I tried. The list of their featured clients confirms that. It looks like 5pm is popular among EDUs and non-profits (like mine): http://www.5pmweb.com/pm_for_edu.php, http://www.5pmweb.com/pm_for_org.php. I do not see any project management expert here making a point against it. I find the calls for this article deletion very random and coming from people not involved in project management. Decisions are based on personal opinions on what reviews are solid and what are "trivial". Are PC World, Venturebeat, Mashable and Microsoft not reliable sources anymore? As a novice Wikipedia contributor, I find this attitude very discouraging. We want to encourage new Wikipedia contributors. I suggest we should seek other opinions, from people related to project management. If Wikipedia lists project management software, 5pm has a right to be listed as well, among all others. NancyJeanGF (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OSE, not only is that unconvincing for the relevance of this article, but nothing above is actually satisfying any notability or otherwise convincing of it; the sources are in fact trivial mentions and listings because they even only include what the company says about itself. Also, "it's popular" followed by a link to their own website is not convincing, therefore my claims of "trivial mentions and listings" still applies if all that is available is their own website.
Localytics was deleted because it was both an advertisment and unconvincing for notability so claiming it is now "Today a simple search shows that the company has about 250 employees and is mentioned as a solid growing business in Boston", that's not substantiating the still-deleted article with actual substance and news, and not something the company published such as PR, interviews, company finances, etc. Simply because a company exists is also not actual significance either. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here is an excerpt from an old version of the article:
Critical Reception
  • PC World - "Easy, Customizable Project Management"[3]
  • Awarded 5 Stars and included in "Good Gear Guide" by PC World Australia.[6]
  • Awarded 5 stars by iTunes[8]
Other references from that article: [9] [10]

References

  1. ^ "5pm - Project Management on Time". CNet - Download.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  2. ^ "QG Software 5pm review". PC Advisor UK. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  3. ^ "5pm: Easy, Customizable Project Management". PC World. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  4. ^ "5pm - Project Management and Team Collabotation". Google Apps. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  5. ^ "5pm Software Review: Overview – Features – Pricing". Ojwango Mwai. Project Management.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  6. ^ "Good Gear Guide". PC World Australia. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  7. ^ "5pm review". Tech World. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  8. ^ "5pm - Project Management on Time". iTunes. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  9. ^ Morochove, Richard. "5pmweb project management on line and on time". ProjectManagementBestSoftware.com. Retrieved 2013-01-09.
  10. ^ "Like 5pm Tool for Project Management? – iPhone Edition Launched!". Agile Scout. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Schaafsma[edit]

Jamie Schaafsma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - While not notable in North America, this guy played internationally in world championships for his national team. Alaney2k (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NHOCKEY now requires playing for the national team in the Championship level of the World Championships which is the level with the top teams. The Netherlands team he was on didn't play in the championship level. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable hockey player, and playing for the Dutch national team still fails WP:NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Has played for the national team but not in the highest Division at the WC. Kante4 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to French Canadians.  Sandstein  16:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French Canada[edit]

French Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is about "the Francophone population of Canada" which is already covered much more extensively (and verifiably) at French Canadians. Geography is covered extensively at Canada and New France among others. Language is covered at French language in Canada. Subsequently, this article page does not serve any purpose. trackratte (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, info ont he page can be found elsewhere in WP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to dab page listing the above articles. This is too common a phrase to delete outright.--Cúchullain t/c 17:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or redirect. I agree with Cuchullain that this shouldn't be a red link, but have no opinion at the moment about the appropriate target(s). That should really be a matter for talk page discussion rather than AfD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to French Canadians. I don't see any other reasonable entries that could justify a dab page (maybe Quebec, but what else?). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a separate standalone article about almost every individual province's or territory's francophone community (except the Maritimes, where they're all subsumed into Acadian rather than having separate provincial identity communities, and Nunavut). Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, the term "French Canada" would be a reasonable search term for French Canadians, Quebec and other parts of New France in what is now Canada (such as Acadia), and Francophone Canada, which is a redirect to French language in Canada.--Cúchullain t/c 02:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
French Canada could possibly refer collectively to all the regions of Canada where francophones reside (although I don't recall it ever being used that way), but definitely not individual areas like Acadia. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It can and does refer to the parts of Canada that were French colonies, which includes Acadia (meaning, not just present-day Quebec). It's a similar construction to French Louisiana, Spanish California, Mexican Texas, etc.--Cúchullain t/c 13:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By what definition of "all the regions of Canada where francophones reside" is Acadia not one of those regions? Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this isn't useful as a standalone article, as there's nothing it can really cover that isn't already covered in French Canadian and its various spinoff pages — but it is too common a phrase to simply be left redlinked, and indeed needs to get the reader somewhere relevant. Even though potential items do exist besides Quebec to make it a dab page (e.g. Franco-Ontarian, Acadians, Franco-Manitoban, French language in Canada, etc.), all of those are also linked in French Canadians already. The best solution, accordingly, is indeed a redirect to French Canadians — the only other alternative, really, would be to turn it into a full-on outline index of all remotely related pages, and that's probably excessive. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2016 (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 01:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Feldkamp[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jim Feldkamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. While this was kept in the original deletion discussion back in 2008, Wikipedia's standards for the notability of politicians, and the degree and depth of reliable source coverage that it actually takes, are much stricter now than they were a decade ago and nothing here satisfies the standards that apply today. The main notability hook is that he was an unsuccessful political candidate, but that's sourced only to local coverage in his own district -- but local coverage of local elections is expected to exist, and thus falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot vault the candidate over WP:GNG in and of itself. The only other piece of reliable source coverage here is about him being recalled to US Navy duty after the election, and that's still a local newspaper in the district where he was a candidate. All of the other citations here are to deadlinked primary sources such as his own website and raw tables of election results, with the exception of a single New York Times citation that completely fails to mention Feldkamp at all, and which is being cited only to support a tangential fact about one of his campaign donors. Neither the sourcing here, nor the substance of what it's supporting, is enough to make him more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Back in 2008 when this article was kept it was somewhat thought that candidates for US House of Representatives were notable if nominees for major parties. Today we have recognized that such is not the case. There is not enough coverage of him to justify keeping an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patial[edit]

Patial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Dearth of notable sources to encycloepadise the article.Will change my decision if some notable sources are found!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 08:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rosyth. MBisanz talk 01:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camdean[edit]

Camdean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Camdean is not a recognised area of Rosyth, it has no significance and does not warrant such a page. Additionally this article is unsourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 October 2016 (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 speedily deleted, per WP:CSD#R2. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Kiguwa[edit]

Melissa Kiguwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No as such significance. Sources are self published/blog sites. Abbottonian (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG.--TM 20:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually as what's listed as information and sources is still actually trivial and unconvincing, there are no apparent substance news or reviews, therefore that also affects the article's future, I'm simply not seeing sufficiently better beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that this interview should be considered Moreover, for Wikipedia, a site which has been frequently criticized for systemic bias against non-western topics, to delete this article on what the London School of Economics calls "one of the best emerging writing talents from the African continent", would be unwise.--TM 19:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. The creator of and only substantive contributor to this article has moved it to user space. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2016 (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) 12:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partner 2[edit]

Partner 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Abbottonian (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete With a "2020 release date" I agree this is WP:TOOSOON
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MOVIE. Maybe someday it'll be a notable movie, but it's too soon to tell. Ajpolino (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not finding much. There's nothing out there about this film past 2012 and honestly, what I am finding isn't really all that great. One source says that there were some scripts being written while another says that one of the main actors, Salman Khan, had no interest in returning to his role in the movie. There's just no way that there wouldn't be coverage for this film if it was getting made. The first one was pretty popular, so that by itself would make papers cover any sequel. The rumored animosity between its two male leads alone would be enough to get the papers and tabloids buzzing, as I get the impression that one of them swore that they wouldn't work with the other again. Since there's no recent coverage that I can find, I'm leaning towards this being a hoax, at least in the sense that there will be a film releasing. There's probably some merit in mentioning that there were plans for a sequel in the article for the first film, but I don't know that there's any true need for a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-per nom. Wow-you have to love how it apparently has a cast already. Wgolf (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. 1-Nov-2016 - they are still gossiping the cast. Fails WP:NFF. There is no content to save (otherwise could have been merged into parent article). We can however give away a redirect for the coverage this supposed upcoming film has received. Anup [Talk] 21:46, 2 November 2016 (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 redirect to AR2. WP:SNOW; very unlikely to be closed any other way. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 12:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ar2[edit]

Ar2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncategorized. Has multiple issues. Not full article. ... Lhealt (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE with extreme prejudice...The full text of this so called article is "A ar2 is a gun seen in the half life sereries and garrys mod Also Known As A Pulse Rifle." This is nothing more than vandalism.--RAF910 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't fit our notability criteria, and too vague for a redirect. ansh666 00:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to AR2, kind of embarrassed that I didn't notice that. ansh666 06:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ansh666 00:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ansh666: AR2 exists. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

El Clásico Boricua[edit]

El Clásico Boricua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:NRIVALRY. No evidence of WP:GNG anywhere within the article; an internet search of some relevant terms doesn't come up with anything significant and, in fact, most of the articles relate to a baseball rivalry of the same name. Also, this rivalry has apparently only existed since 2010 (when the two teams first met). Spiderone 13:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisian Triangle[edit]

Tunisian Triangle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant usage of this term. Even if it is used fairly often, I'm not sure that there can be any justification for writing an entire article about it. Wikipedia is not a glossary. I can't see evidence that WP:GNG is met. Also see WP:NRIVALRY. Spiderone 13:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of named devils in Dungeons & Dragons.  Sandstein  16:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lilis (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Lilis (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Ravenloft characters. MBisanz talk 01:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Boritsi[edit]

Ivana Boritsi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloak of Levitation[edit]

Cloak of Levitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails to establish notability. The only real sources seem to be topical articles related to the new movie, but they're mostly just irrelevant. TTN (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reprimand nominator for WP:BEFORE failure. The above Google News link shows a plethora of references to this fictional element in the upcoming movie and associated trailers. GNG is easily, predictably, and obviously met. Jclemens (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained, they're just irrelevant topical articles that will add no substance to the article. They have no worth beyond explaining a comparatively minor element to the MCU-only fans. "*Random news site* described the Cloak of Levitation in layman's terms to casual fans" is not a particularly important statement. It's just fluff. TTN (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • RS Articles on Doctor Strange movie are irrelevant to Wikipedia article on Doctor Strange fictional elements? Truly, a unique and unsupportable perspective. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do show how a bunch of useless news articles can be used in the context of the article. You won't, because you can't. Weight has to be taken into account when looking at should and can be included in an article. These recent news articles amount to harmless click bait with no substance. Why is it that you cannot just take an objective look at sources? TTN (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be interested to hear what specific information from these sources Jclemens thinks should be included, and/or if he thinks the article is currently in acceptable condition. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the powers and abilities section of Doctor Strange. Despite the high number of hits this term has on google, it's not independently notable and it's unlikely there will ever be enough real-world information to justify a standalone article. If it is kept, however, then a link should be added from the Doctor Strange page, which currently mentions it twice but never links it. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the powers and abilities section of Doctor Strange per Argento Surfer's comment above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pretty much per JClemens. Nomination is logically incoherent. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was looking this subject on WP up after reading the following line: "There’s even a great deal of physical comedy, much of it from Strange’s ornery cloak of levitation... Like Guardians of the Galaxy’s Groot before it, this animate artifact will likely prove itself the film’s true breakout star." (source). SnowFire (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Doctor Strange article under Power and Abilities. This AfD probably would have gone more smoothly (or even unanimously) if it had been posed prior to the release of the film. Although I would like to assume good faith, the presumed objectivity of the nomination does come into question. Due to such comments as "irrelevant topical articles", gives the impression that establishing notability is based on the whims and judgement of one editor, who could have proposed a discussion on the article talk page before jumping headlong into AfD. With all that aside, I can see see merit in merging the article into the Doctor Strange article carried out by nominator, who has a habit of deleting/redirecting articles without trying to salvage what information can be used in a sub-article nature (first appearance, commentary by creators, minor reception). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Doctor Strange. It's part and parcel of the fictional character, any notability derives from him.  Sandstein  16:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Supplementing my keep !vote, above, from the Chicago Tribune review of the film, "the Cloak of Levitation . . . is a pleasure, a supporting player of wit and distinction, emblematic of the best of "Doctor Strange".[21] It's not our place here to declare that subjects aren't worthy of the independent critical attention they;ve received. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an independently notable artifact. bd2412 T 18:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Africa[edit]

Derby Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As has been tagged, this is actually referring to the Cairo Derby, which is notable. I am opposed to a merge as I don't believe that this article has anything worth merging; the other article is better in every department. I also disagree with a redirect as I can't see any evidence that the Cairo Derby has ever been called 'Derby Africa', certainly not as a widespread term. I think that the title is misleading as there are plenty of derbies in Africa that could compete for this title potentially. Spiderone 12:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - duplicate article that doesn't merit being a redirect. GiantSnowman 12:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cairo derby. Notable search term. --Jimbo[online] 18:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - duplicate article, not seeing any indication that this is a widely used terms for this rivalry, seems inherently generic to me as well. Fenix down (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete duplicate of Cairo Derby, and redirect doesn't seem like a good option, as Derby Africa could refer to any derby match between African teams. Joseph2302 18:23, 31 October 2016 (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 01:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Romero Roses[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gloria Romero Roses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP, with some advertorial/résumé overtones, of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in a party primary. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she already passed a notability criterion for some other reason independent of running in the primary, then the primary itself does not get her over the inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is not even the head of the non-notable PAC she works with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She was also trounced in the primary. The fact that this article was kept in 2012 shows that Wikipedia needs to have more consistent enforcement of high notability standards for candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:34, 29 October 2016 (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. Peridon (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sportscart[edit]

Sportscart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article only contains an infobox and doesn't show any notability of the subject User:Supercarwaar/signature 11:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

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, as boldly overruled by User:Drmies, see public log.  (non-admin closure)  Unscintillating (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I don't know about this change in the result (well, I do know); this AfD might have gone different if different things had been known at different times. As it is, I ran into this, restored it, and added references to show notability. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education[edit]

The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not really clear whether this is an academic journal or a magazine (it looks like this was a peer-reviewed journal and then morphed into an online newsletter/magazine). In any case, there is no evidence that it meets any inclusion guidelines. There are no independent sources (I am discounting the cited listings in the Library of Congress Catalog and JSTOR, which do not constitute in-depth coverage), so this does not meet WP:GNG. The journal is not covered in any selective databases, so it does not meet WP:NJournals either. In the absence of any evidence that this is notable: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Randykitty, the journal did not meets wiki inclusion criteria of indexing. Jessie1979 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font.  19:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there a way to let WP:African Diaspora know about this without canvassing please? Happy for someone else to do it.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a neutral note there, although that talk page doesn't seem to be very active. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article needs work to make it a little more encyclopedic in tone, but not to the level of deletion per WP:TNT. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims[edit]

Post-assault treatment of sexual assault victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TNT: WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:ESSAY Kleuske (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a significant and well sourced subject that involves medical and legal issues. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The well sourced bit escaped my attention. Most claims are sourced by referring to specific incidents and surrounded by weaselwords suggesting they are common occurences. Kleuske (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 52 refs on the page. This is obviously a well defined subject, and there are numerous sources specifically about it [22]. This is not a "coatrack". My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please not that I'm not arguing "Fails WP:GNG" but WP:TNT based on poor quality. This needs to be fundamentally rewritten.
It is not the number of sources I'm worried about, but their usage. Case in point, the section Harassment by private investigators is supported by three sources: one of which are court documents where misbehavior is alledged (only the complaint is used, no outcome), the other two relate to the Nate Parker-case. Parker was acquitted of all charges. This is just one example of a specific case being used to support general statements. That's WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. That's not the only misuse of sources. Just counting the number of references, without any concern as to what these sources are or how they are used is bad practice, nay, it's cargo cult editing. Kleuske (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to rewrite the page, but this is not a reason for deletion, at least not in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. "A page can be so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over." I note you have no counterarguments, except, well, "do it yourself". Kleuske (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is big, informative and sourced page on important and legitimate subject. I do not see any real indications that it must be TNT-ed. Note that WP:TNT is an essay, not a policy. According to your own arguments, it should be improved. Yes, sure, every version is a wrong version. My very best wishes (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not informative, but scaremongering and misleading. I've pointed out just one example of this text being anything but well-sourced and informative and you have utterly failed to address any of it (apart from DIY). I already removed some obvious WP:COATRACKing: breast ironing in Cameroon. I outlined my objections to the very lede on the talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You tell above: delete "Per WP:TNT: WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:ESSAY". OK. The policies are only WP:SYNTH, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. You must explain: (a) why this whole page, rather than a part of it, was "original research", (b) why this is a blatant BLP violation that can be fixed only by deleting whole page, and (c) why this is an inherent NPOV violation that can be fixed only by deleting whole page. I do not see it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It contains elements of all three (Mostly WP:SYNTH). If it were, completely, a WP:BLP issue, I'd chosen a {{prod blp}}. As another example, at the moment, the article is claiming censorship. The issues are serious enough to warrant deletion per WP:TNT. Kleuske (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly passes GNG criteria, it is extensively sourced, and while it could use a bit of cleanup, it is clearly a notable topic. Important not to confuse article quality with notability. What's in there does have some pretty strong personal opinions and would benefit from a more scholarly tone, but I see no need for TNT. Montanabw(talk) 08:51, 4 November 2016 (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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ninni Laaksonen[edit]

Ninni Laaksonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With all due respect to this lady, her notability is limited to accusing Trump of grabbing her ass some day. This event is mentioned in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Ninni Laaksonen (2006) and does not deserve a standalone article. — JFG talk 08:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: notable like all Miss Finland winners. --SI 09:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep or Wrong Venue  No argument for deletion and improper review of the alternatives to deletion.  Nomination has stipulated that this topic is already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia, which the essay WP:INSIGNIFICANCE identifies as a significant topic.  As per the alternatives to deletion, notability is not a deletion argument when the remedy is a merge.  As per WP:Deletion policy this is a content dispute and the place to discuss notability is the talk page of the article or the proposed target article.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- we have two events here, Miss Finland and groping allegations. As a national titleholder, the subject would generally be considered notable anyway, and more sources are likely to be available in Finnish. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A beauty pageant winner who had her ass grabbed by Trump. WP:BLP2E. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for rewriting the article to its appropriate length, Muboshgu! — JFG talk 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by OP – Obviously, a redirect to the ass-grabbing page would be in order too. And just for my education, are all Miss Country X Year N automatically notable? — JFG talk 20:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She's definitely notable, if not because she was allegedly groped by Trump, then because she's Miss Finland. Definitely a far cry from WP:BIO1E. Parsley Man (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one has demonstrated that the coverage of Miss Finland is at a level to justify default notability, they have just asserted it without clear evidence of such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: National winners of Miss Universe feeder pageants meet GNG and the Trump connection gets additional significant coverage. Montanabw(talk) 07:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international matches umpired by Marais Erasmus[edit]

List of international matches umpired by Marais Erasmus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
List of international matches umpired by Joel Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic case of WP:IINFO. Utterly pointless and useless set of stats. What next? List of international matches played by Virat Kohli? Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 08:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 08:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 08:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the harm in maintaining an umpire's statistics?? Cricket246 (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a bare list of statistics with no narrative and no key or other means of describing to non-cricket readers the meaning and context of the data. In addition, I think lists of this sort are done to excess and should be limited to persons who had major importance in cricket history which would exclude, inter alia, the curse of recentism. Jack | talk page 09:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also the extra tags I've placed on the article: no categories, no lead, no context, etc. Jack | talk page 09:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY – "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". There are at least two publicly available websites that list this information, and I'm sure anyone looking for a list of matches officiated by a particular umpire will already be aware of both of those. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WHATTHE? Harrias talk 17:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Rangers Football Club[edit]

Atlantic Rangers Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphan from 2007 about a non-notable soccer club. The article's promotional language would be fixable, but an online search for any kind of sources came up completely empty, aside from a few Wiki-mirrors. GermanJoe (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Yousuf Khan[edit]

Fahad Yousuf Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline WP:A7, likely an autobiography, sourced only to a personal blog. Otherwise fails WP:GNG: no hits at all in GBooks, 1 in GNews (Twitter feed section of a news article), only 45 unique hits in a regular Google search (mostly online accounts). --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2016 (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.

Tomas Gorny[edit]

The result was No consensus to delete. The full listing period has expired; a full discussion has taken place; and editors cannot agree whether to delete this material.—S Marshall T/C 13:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

AfDs for this article:
Tomas Gorny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please see not only the past AfDs closed as Delete but also see the AfDs for the Nextiva company itself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (3rd nomination) (4 whopping nominations, the last one closing in the last 3 weeks) and then also Draft:Nextiva, so it's troubling to see how there were such numerous attempts at advertising both the man and company, therefore that's what the current article still is, only advertising what his career and the company is about; the sources themselves echo this and this article should not have been blatantly accepted from AfC last month. Note also how this last Tomas Gorny AfD was in January, and yet the listed contents are all for events and information in both 2014 and 2015 with the new sources also apparently simply existing to advertise him. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG: 1.) it has enough references 2.) it was reviewed by admins and their conclusion was that it meet GNG and 3.) the last person who nominated the page to AfD also agrees that it now meets GNG.
1.) It is correct that the subject was at AfD 2 times before (and this is the 3rd). The last AfD was January 2016. In the summer of 2016, new news coverage came out about the subject on multiple papers such as Huff Post, Business Insider, Chicago Tribune. The articles are about him specifically and the his story is the personification of the American Dream, hence why it got coverage in other countries as well such as Vietnam, Romania, and Czech Republic.
2.) The second AfD also resulted in the namespace being salted. This article was submitted to AfC by me and reviewed by User:KGirlTrucker81. User:KGirlTrucker81 then submitted it for DRV, which the admins determined sufficient enough for it to be unsalted. You can read the DRV here. The conclusion was that the subject has enough coverage from reliable sources to be included in the Encyclopedia. User:Sandstein was the reviewing admin.
3.) Finally, User:Rklawton, the person who nominated the subject to AfD the second time, also agrees that he now meets GNG (see User_talk:Rklawton#Tomas_Gorny). CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note that I did not express an opinion of my own about the notability of the topic.  Sandstein  15:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Passes GNG. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 14:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, on the basis of the couple of substantial news articles about him since the previous AfD in January, e.g. Business Insider and Huffington Post Blog. Though the Forbes piece and the Chicago Tribune Community pieces are submitted by non-journalist contributors which suggests there is a bit of a campaign going on to raise Gorny's profile. I'd suggest the article is watched closely for excessive promotion. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sionk above. Also other experienced editors involved in the unsalt discussion before the AFCH that led to this version of this subject agree meets notability which I don't want to repeat here. This version also differs significantly from the previous deleted one as evidenced here. TushiTalk To Me 18:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep or Keep  Unclear why this discussion has been opened.  It is certainly not a notability concern.  The nomination uses the term "advertising" three times, so this might be a WP:NOT argument, but no evidence of a problem is identified, and there are no Wikilinks to either WP:NOT or WP:DEL14.  I also tried reading the article without seeing the concern.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The concerns at DRV allowed unsalting and a new article however the current article is still not actually saying how he's independently notable and is in fact still advertising him like the past articles, therefore there's no Speedy Keep, and there's also no actual WP:GNG, especially if it's not actually explained in specific how Tomas satisfies it. Also, when an article is a blatant advertisement, there are several pages that can apply, WP:ADVERTISING, WP:NOT, WP:DEL14 and even WP:IAR, therefore the nomination itself lists the concerns, including how even the new sources themselves are still in fact advertising, caring to only specify what there to advertise about him.
Note for example the links above: They are literally interviews, "From rags to riches", "An inspiring story from Tomas Gorny", "Inspiring tips from Tomas Gorny"; as it is the HuffPost has become blatantly controlled by such PR advertising, and then the Forbes article is damningly listed as "from a special contributor", apparently by a freelance journalist meaning that journalist could've easily been paid or enticed by the company or Tomas itself. Also, considering the past concerns, simply boldly accepting it by itself without actually considering and noticing the past deletions (not to mention because of the still existing advertising information and sources in this exact article), is worrying by itself. Therefore, with all that, we cannot simply "Speedy Keep" including because the concerns still exist, and the DRV itself said "It can be tested at AfD again" and "It can go to AfD again". SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "independently notable" is not a policy based term.

    Articles don't have to show wp:notability.  See the WP:N nutshell, which says, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."  The content policies are listed at Category:Wikipedia_content_policies.  It says this more than once in WP:N.  So the argument that Speedy keep doesn't apply because the article doesn't show notabiity is not sustained. 

    Again, WP:N does not require that the article "actually explain in specific how Tomas satisfies it", because WP:N is not a content guideline.

    Repeating the concern that the article is advertising without providing an explanation for how or why the article is advertising does not advance the argument. 

    As for the argument that a URL with the words "rags to riches" is advertising, this seems to me like normal expressive writing, and I'm not sure how any English definition of "advertising" would apply.  As far as content policy goes, this is the first time I've seen anyone argue that a hidden URL was a form of advertising to which WP:NOT could apply.  Even if it was, which I'm not suggesting, such a source could still contribute to WP:GNG, and then not be used on the article for WP:V. 

    As for interviews, it is an unusual interview that is completely the result of the topic approaching the interviewer.  All other interviews contribute to at least some extent to WP:GNG.  So there is nothing inherently wrong with interviews. 

    Citing WP:IAR requires explaining how ignoring the policies and guidelines improves the encyclopedia. 

    As for the source from the Chicago Tribune from the Community Contributor, that doesn't appear to be a reliable source, which Sionk has already noted.  Sionk has also commented about the Forbes source. 

    As for the "HuffPost has become blatantly controlled by such PR advertising", what is the evidence?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:ADVERTISING is a dab page.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for forgetting to mention in the nomination that you thought the topic had notability problems, nominations bind the time of volunteers here, including administrators.  It seems that you are not aware of what arguments your nominations have made.  I suggest that you report WP:BEFORE D1 results in every nomination you think has notability issues, check for alternatives to deletion before nominating, and give specific WP:DEL-REASONs in each nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment  Here are the sources from the current article:
Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Once again when an advertising hands down needs removing in that it saves Wikipedia and saves itself from damages, that's all that matters; also, once again, relisting the sources once again is simply overfilling this page unnecessarily even after I have analyzed them and noted the blatant ones containing self-focused and self-supplied information such as interviews, published and republished life stories such as literally saying what he thinks about his own career. The local newspapers are obvious with this, and as it is, we ourselves at AfD have established that the BizJournals are never convincing or independent as they blatantly publish and republish press releases and anything else the subject(s) say about themselves.
The BizJournals is also obvious with this considering "See which 5 Arizona tech companies are among the fastest growing in the country" which not only advertises it, but also simply contains local information they want their clients and investors to know, therefore that contains nothing relevant for Wikipedia. In that case of said republished life story, see "How a Polish Immigrant Made Millions at 23, Lost it All and Made Everything Back" which is clearly something he would only say and therefore is not idnependent, it's even a blatant advertisement simply attempting to gain interest "Look at this story about a successful businessman". Also, as for the WP:ADVERTISING, it's self-explanatory with both WP:What Wikipedia is not#Soaphoax and also then WP:SPAM, both of which apply. We literally have to stop kidding ourselves and face the damning facts of such advertisements.
As for "it is an unusual interview that is completely the result of the topic approaching the interviewer. All other interviews contribute to at least some extent to WP:GNG. So there is nothing inherently wrong with interviews." is not at all convincing for notability because we at AFD ourselves have established that interviews are not in fact convincing for notability as it only advertises what the subject(s) want to say about themselves, which is therefore advertising, equivalent to their own PR and republished PR. Even take for example ""Tomas Gorny" Named A Top 100 Champion", it's not only from a PR-publishing website, it's not actual substance let alone notability. The IPower link is literally their own "About Us" page. Other blatant interviews are "Destination American Dream: Technology Innovator Tomas Gorny Shares His Story" and "Tomas Gorny's story of his own company".
I still confirm everything else I've said above as they apparently have not been counteroffered or acknowledged as genuine concerns. Removing ourselves of such blatant advertisements which shouldn't have been quickly accepted from AfC, because such adverts can cause inexplicable damages, WP:IAR is fulfilled. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So above I asked one question, and the question has received no response.

    Regarding your quote of what I said about interviews, my original had a Wikilink to WP:INTERVIEWS.  I am a contributor to that essay.  I can't tell if you failed to notice the link or don't like what it says; but the point remains that it is not a policy based argument to claim that AfD ignores interviews.

    The idea that an interview "only advertises what the subject(s) want to say about themselves" makes me wonder what definition of "advertise" this is.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite. Possibly notable. We deleted one of his recent companies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (3rd nomination) and even deleted the draft. But his earlier work may be more significant, and since is was merged and then bought by a notable large firm, doesn't normally get a separate article. The problem is that the article is written in the conventional style used by paid editors: 1. His parents working class backgrounds. 2. The gift in childhood or adolescent which aroused his interest 3. His early part time jobs as an adolescent. 4, His early setback and near ruin, complete with personal details of his financial state, 5/his extreme efforts to raise seed money 6/the successful buyout of the firm by some actually notable company. 6/the minor stuff he's been doing since then. 7/the trivial awards 8. The refs. Mostly business magazines and local journals, with the 1 or 2 promotional articles in what used to be reputable publications.
But much to my surprise this was written by an established editor, who has been active for several years, and who has been helpfully working on getting many pages on minor companies deleted. I therefore assume it's another case of the pervasive promotional style being unconsciously adopted by a good faith editor. I'm sure they can do better with it. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My inclination is delete per WP:TNT and as the founder of several non-notable companies (notability is not inherited, is non-notability?) It definitely needs a complete rewrite, and this needs to ruthlessly exclude all traces of churnalism. It is really really hard to WP:AGF here, so I suggest CerealKillerYum does not play any part in any rewrite. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - removed fluff that was in the article and un-referenced material as part of working on the recommendations by other editors in this AFD. TushiTalk To Me 18:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the rewritten article does not present a convincing case for notability or significance; merely an unremarkable serial entrepreneur associated with non notable entities. The source presented at this AfD are "fluff" -- interviews and admiring "leadership" stories. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The article passes WP:GNG. If there are parts of the article that are being used as a vehicle of promotion, they can be rewritten. However, that claim itself cannot be used to delete the article of someone who is clearly notable, as the citations in the article suggest. Bmbaker88 (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep is yet again not applicable here because of the fact this was specifically deleted before and thus it's relevant and necessary for community input once again; also, the links themselves listed still only focus with advertising himself and his businesses, therefore that's enough for opening to question as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your assessment about the citations in the article. They aren't press releases but sources that meet WP:IRS. It's therefore not accurate to state that they're advertisements. Just my two cents. Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The contents themselves are, because it's the man advertising himself and his businesses, making it still unacceptable, regardless of what the publication's name is. SwisterTwister talk 00:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - From looking at the 2nd deletion discussion, the concern was that he is a local businessman. He is the CEO of a company that appears to be more than local. One reference also talks about him selling two other companies so he is more than just a CEO of a company, he is an actual entrepreneur. Even if he was local, he has gained significant coverage in reliable sources which makes him meet WP:GNG. Again, we will see the churnalism arguments but not sure how this meets that definition. Considered a reliable source and there is no evidence this is Native advertising as I do not see any sponsored tag on the article. A reliable source profiling a person like this does not mean it is churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For all honesty, "also talks about him selling two other companies" has no basis for notability at all and, I'll note that even the listed 1 source above is in fact an interview from start to finish, it begins with the man stating his early beginnings to then literally a list of "lessons learned", none of that establishes notability, regardless of the publication's name, because it means nothing if it's all the subject's own words ("Tomas Gorny’s life is a true rags-to-riches story that should serve as an inspiration for any budding entrepreneur", although common usage, is still not something suitable for this article). In fact, every single sentence always begins by either an exact quote or still something coming from the man himself. If this were to be kept, it would need a hellstorm of actual improvements and not cosmetics of PR. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say it is an interview from start to finish. Maybe there is a language barrier here but you cannot honestly say that is an interview from start to finish. I do not see the questions and do not see the Q&A format that is seen in interview articles in the same publication such as this one. From reading the article, it is clear that they interviewed him for the story. Does that make it promotional? Does that make it unreliable? NO! That publication is reliable as it has standards of fact checking. They cannot "guess" about this man's history, they need to ask him. The reliability comes from their editorial standards and fact checking. As it stands, BI is considered a reliable source unless you can show me they didn't do any fact checking or that this is a native advertising article. So, I cannot accept your argument that it is an interview from start to finish and is not a reliable source. I'm going to have to maintain my !keep vote on this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes to a "hellstorm of improvements" and that should have been the first thing to have been done rather than this AFD. Deleting articles because they lack in some areas that can be addressed is surely against the AFD policy. From the article history it can be seen that you SwisterTwister, did not make any such attempt and coming on here is against the AGF principle. I will mention that some experienced users above have suggested an improvement on the article which is what we should all strive to do to the article and others rather than use our energies here lobbying for deletion and keep. If it can improved then that is what should be done for now. TushiTalk To Me 13:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First there's no need to make any improvements to the article because, as the DRV stated, a new AfD would in fact be necessary given its long history of controversy here at AfD, thus here we are. Also, because this article is still an advertisement, it's also necessary for community input, especially because such advertisements are damning us as an encyclopedia, therefore it cannot be said "Let's simply go focus with another article or subject". SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a variety of reasons, including most of the above sentiments. It meets GNG, and the sources from Business Insider, Forbes, Huffington Post, Chicago Tribune, and others are solid. He's clearly got notability beyond his region. Gargleafg (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes and Chicago Tribune pieces aren't "solid", they're vanity pieces submitted by non-journalist contributors. Sionk (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll note that simply because a publication name is listed, is not meaning we automatically keep it, especially if the contents themselves are still unacceptable, as AfD established itself: Forbes is no longer a confident source given how PR-motivated and controlled it's become as has the HuffPost, therefore the leaves ChicagoTribune, which in itself was simply interviewed quotes, hence not independent or significant. If that's the best we can say "Hey, there's some republished PR, it's enough!" We're still damaging ourselves as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because of the obvious controversy about this article and the fact the past DRV in fact allowed a new AfD, this should not be hastily closed, given it would simply still be a controversial article that was deleted before, and is in fact still in need of community input given the last DRV (which explicitly stated "if started, this will need AfD"). Hence also, "Speedy Keep" is not applicable when it was explicitly stated this would once again be at AfD, so here we are. SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 12 November 2016 (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. MER-C 03:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Santi[edit]

Sophia Santi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A vanity page on an unremarkable actress that does not meet BIO or WP:PORNBIO; significant RS coverage cannot be found. Sources listed are interviews or otherwise not independent coverage, resulting in a WP:PSEUDO biography with intricate detail such as "her father is Romanian, with Gypsy and Mongolian ancestry" and "she got a very large tattoo of a Japanese dragon at age 18". Awards listed are scene-related and not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clearly not satisfying the applicable notability and there's literally nothing else actually meaningful substantial for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks coverage by independent reliable sources. Porn trade press coverage consists of republished press releases and passing mentions. Fails GNG and scene-related award wins don't satisfy PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, with some suggestions that the article can be re-nominated after the election, when its notability may have changed. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham senior thesis[edit]

Hillary Rodham senior thesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable paper. There have been calls to delete or merge this article before on its talk page. It's already summarized in the Hillary Clinton article as: "Rodham wrote her senior thesis, a critique of the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky, under Professor Schechter.[34] (Years later, while she was first lady, access to her thesis was restricted at the request of the White House and it became the subject of some speculation. The thesis was later released.[34])"[23] so I think deleting or redirecting this is better than a merge. Emily Goldstein (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The interest in the thesis seems to stem solely from when it was unavailable, so I think its mention in the Hillary Clinton article is sufficient enough. The paper itself doesn't appear notable, even if its article is well sourced and written. For reference, here is the previous and unsuccessful merge proposal. Jr8825 • Talk 09:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator hasn't advanced a reason why this article is just not notable, it would be helpful if they could do so. Multiple articles in major news sources over a series of several years suggest this isn't an ordinary thesis. It is standard for U.S. presidents and presidential candidates to have their personal lives covered in detail on Wikipedia, which of course is only possible because the wider media do likewise. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Too many reliable third-party sources about this. This article was created in 2007; nominating it for deletion only 11 days before the US presidential election seems strange to me. At least two editors left arguments on the talkpage to keep the article in 2014.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the paper is not notable as an academic work, it is notable because it has been extensively written about. There are adequate sources to write it in a neutral manner. A lot of Hillary-haters have unfairly used her connection with Alinsky to smear her, which has added to the notability of the paper and makes this article useful for readers since it provides a fair account of what she actually wrote. TFD (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An interesting subject that a substantial number of people would like to read about, judging by page views in excess of a thousand a day. The fact that it was once unavailable, and is now available, does not stem the notability deriving from its period of unavailability. bd2412 T 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An article like this, while it has sufficient coverage in reliable sources, really needs to be completely neutral or it can become a coatrack in no time. A quick glance at the article seems to show that it gives a lot of weight to views criticizing the withholding of the thesis, without noting that many of the views expressed are from partisan sources (Brock, Noonan, Olson). Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like an editing issue to be fixed within the article, not an argument for or against deletion. Any article on a controversial topic can become a coatrack for partisan views; the solution is careful policing of the article content. bd2412 T 17:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think it gives undue weight. The fact that not releasing it was criticized is important to the story and no reason for keeping the thesis sealed has been provided. It should be pointed out in the article however that the suspicions of the anti-Hillary commentators that it showed her support of Alinsky turned out to be false. But as BD2412 says, any weight issues can be fixed. TFD (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree and I wasn't arguing for deletion. I do think the article would be bettered by noting the partisan nature of many of the critics, and, as noted above, that the thesis did not turn to be a strong defense of Alinsky's ideas. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer. Due to the potential appearance of politically-based bias, it would be wise to defer discussion of this topic entirely (and thus, a temporary Keep) until after the conclusion of elections. Tianmang (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary keep. Regardless of arguments over whether this has received enough coverage in its own right, if Clinton wins the election this will become de facto notable in its own right as a political work written by a US President. Deleting something when (at the time of writing) there's a 76% chance it will just be recreated in three weeks seems like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. I'd suggest closing or withdrawing this AFD, and renominating in in a month. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is notable, in the sense of WP:GNG, coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. It is also information in the public interest. I agree that some of the sources are biased, but the article should be edited to maintain neutrality, not deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk)
  • Comment: Like the Donald Trump's hair page and Socks' page this page seems like a waste of space, unlike the pages deleted by the administrator named Neutrality: (Political positions of Ralph Nader, political positions of Jill Stein, political positions of Cynthia McKinney). For info, Socks is was the Clinton family's cat. SashiRolls (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable either intrinsically or in Sec'y Clinton's life. Discussion would be WP:UNDUE in her biography article and this feels like a coatrack or POV fork in the making. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Temporally notable as the paper itself is a talking point during the elections. Perhaps revisit after the elections, but this has been reference in several discussions in which I've been embroiled. jzp (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extensive, intensive coverage in RS passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2016 (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. MER-C 03:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Rostedt[edit]

Jessica Rostedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garcia Bros.[edit]

Garcia Bros. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A music group with questionable notability with no reliable sources or refs to be found. (looking up Garcia brothers I seem to get more companies then anything-but I kind of expected that) Wgolf (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Nails[edit]

Scott Nails (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that does not contain any biographical prose, and only lists industry awards, which I'm not sure are "significant and well known" to meet WP:PORNBIO. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. The technical SNG pass does not overcome lack of sources, thus this page falls under WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two Scale Cartel[edit]

Two Scale Cartel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hip hop duo with questionable notability with no sources to be found. Wgolf (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A similar one I just put up by the same user: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garcia Bros.. Wgolf (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2016 (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. Soft deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry O'Flaherty[edit]

Jerry O'Flaherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alleged to be an A7 article, however its in reasonable enough shape that I think an afd better reflects the article's current status. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - While the subject appears in multiple reliable sources, he is only mentioned in passing - nothing detailing him or his career. Meatsgains (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Utah USA. Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Chukanov[edit]

Laura Chukanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This took a bit more to think through, since there was coverage from Sofia, Bulgaria. Still that just amounts to "local girl does well in a pageant somewhere else" that we see in lots of coverage of Miss USA state contestant winners. The coverage all focuses on Chukanov's win as Miss Utah USA and nothing in the coverage rises to the level to pass over more than one event and move this into the level of coverage that passes GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Miss Utah USA or Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations Delete (See comment below for reasoning): This subject does not deserve a stand-alone article. I was thinking "International coverage" is a good thing when I looked at this. The reference from Bulgaria states Sofia-born Laura Chukanov places fourth in Miss USA competition, and "places fourth" caught my attention. The next reference ("Cover Story: Utah 2008") returned Epic 404 - Article Not Found. The third reference ("Cover Story: Miss Utah USA 2009 vies for Miss USA while juggling homework and philanthropy.") returned This site can’t be reached. A search brought up a recent NY Times article concerning allegations against Donald Trump, when he got her to wear a bikini, and exploring how bad he treated women. I was getting into this when I read "her introduction to Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago was the start of a whirlwind romance". Crap, they had a fling "AFTER the fact". There are some current references about this bikini exploitation, then --- she came to his rescue and said she was misquoted. Now I am having to look farther into this. What I see are other news reports about the "allegations", including what the subject said was the New York Times "hit piece" on Trump. She won Miss USA 2009, which is not enough to satisfy WP:notability. The subject does have a place on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article, and would certainly add some balance, and is already listed on the Miss Utah USA article. Otr500 (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we going to delete all the other state representatives too are we punishing this girl for being connected to a political candidate we non-neutrally dislike? GuzzyG (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Utah USA; due to the connection to the Trump scandal, it's a possible search term. Would rather not see it redirected to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, as off topic, since the subject has not made any allegations. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only 10 of the 51 winners of Miss USA state titles in 2009 currently have articles. Of these one was Miss Universe Bahamas and one Miss Universe Ghana both in 2011. Another 2 were contestants in reality shows, I am not sure if in either case it really was enough to make them notable. There are probably 3 others who are not notable, although I have not completed all background checks yet to consider that issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These two paragraphs "After competing in the 2009 Miss USA pageant, Laura Kirilova Chukanov, a Bulgarian immigrant who lived in Utah, met with Mr. Trump in his New York office and explained that she wanted to make a documentary about her home country. Mr. Trump encouraged the project and followed through on a promise to put her in touch with his production company. “He genuinely wanted to know what I wanted to do with my life and how he could help,” Ms. Chukanov said." seem to be what the New York Times quoted, repeated in the largely similar Seattle Times article. The Salt Lake Tribune ran the following about Chukanov Laura Chukanov was quoted in the same New York Times story in which Taggart became one of a dozen women to allege Trump touched her inappropriately.

Like Taggart, Chukanov was invited to meet with Trump in New York City after finishing third runner-up at the 2009 Miss USA pageant. But Chukanov found him encouraging and well-intentioned, The Times reported in May.

Whereas Taggart told CNN's Erin Burnett that Trump kissed her twice on the mouth — including a kiss inside Trump Tower that "felt like a little bit more to me" — Chukanov told The Tribune that the eventual Republican presidential candidate kissed her on the cheek. As a Bulgarian immigrant, it struck Chukanov as a casual, European greeting. Nothing amorous.

That aside, "everything with his campaign I've found disgusting and appalling," Chukanov said last week by phone from New York, where she works as an account executive.

Chukanov said she was revolted by the vulgar sexual comments that Trump made to "Access Hollywood" anchor Billy Bush in 2005, which Trump has labeled "locker room talk" and said does not reflect his conduct.

"I don't think that is OK at any point in a grown man's life or any person's life, especially one that is running for president and wants to be taken seriously," Chukanov said. so she seems to reject Trump but not accuse him of anything, although there are lots of points to consider, the main one here I guess is that she is used as a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I still think this article should be deleted. A big problem with the coverage, especially from the Salt Lake Tribune, is that Chukanov is not the subject. The subject is perceptions of Donald Trump. I also have to admit that I find the contrasting Chukanov's description of a kiss on the cheek to Taggart's claims of being kissed on the lips as highly odd. It almost seems to be written to question Taggart's claims even though such makes no sense, since the claim that Trump will kiss some women on the lips uninvited does not hinge on his willingness to kiss every women in such a manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  No policy basis for a deletion has been presented here, and since AfD is "Articles for Deletion", the proper closure of this AfD was a speedy keep WP:NPASR or wrong venue as soon as the nomination was posted.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Perfectly good article.  That international attention to the topic and coverage in multiple reliable sources show that the topic is not a hoax, is not disputed.  Continuing coverage in 2016 regarding Trump shows what should be general knowledge, that the world at large considers the title of Miss Utah USA, in association with titleholders, to be a matter of enduring relevance, no matter why else the titleholder attracts attention.  If editors are determined to assert that the topic is not notable, the conversation should be taken to the proper forum, which AfD is not, as this is a matter for the people who want to do the work of the merger.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I changed my mind on the Trump angle (and my !vote). Laura didn't make any accusations, it was just a NY times spin against Trump, so Lambert's assessment is "spot on". Without that this subject does fail notability. WP:BIO states, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"...", and there is absolutely nothing along those lines. There simply is not enough reliable sources even by stretching the imagination and my assessment on the references is accurate. This reference is titled "Utah 2008" with the subcaption: "Congratulations to Miss Utah USA 2008 Julia Maria Bachison. She was a semifinalist at the 2008 Miss USA pageant.". In the forth paragraph there is "The first runner up was Jamie Crandall, second runner up was Monica Richards, third runner up was Laura Chukanow, and fourth runner up was Margot Nebeker.". The only way to read this reference is to continually refresh the page because "WayBackMachine keeps plastering a notification (Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived) over it, and it is titled Cover Story: Miss Utah USA 2009 vies for Miss USA while juggling homework and philanthropy.. The Salt Lake Tribune article is about comments concerning Trump and the Sofia article is about her placing 4th in Miss USA. Assertions that this is a "Perfectly good article" is mind blowing. Because there is a reference does not make notability, no matter where it is from, especially when she placed 4th. The assertion that there is "No policy basis for a deletion", given the clear lack of notability, is astounding. It is not in the lead and lightly mentioned in the body of the article with no reference "She competed the following year and won the title.", and I had to read in the external links (The first publication of Laura Chukanov) "Until the end of 2008, when we got acquainted with the girl who had just won the title of Miss Utah USA." to even actually verify she won a state title. Upon reexamination, a lack of notability with just the one state win, and references used as place-markers just attempting to show there are some, leaves me no alternative but to !vote delete. Otr500 (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination stated that this was a one event, which means that this is a merge discussion not a deletion discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N states, emphasis in original, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..." 

    As per WP:ARTN, Wikipedia notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The use of hyperbole with words such as "absolutely", "mindblowing", "astounding", and "no alternative" does not strengthen the argument. 

    The opinion that a reliable source, as reported in the article, should be ignored where it gives attention to this topic, is the personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor.  Wikipedia notability is not defined by the personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I can type any way I like just as you can wikilawyer any way you like. You support everything in the world having an article on Wikipedia and there are others that just do not agree and support policies and guidelines giving at least a minimum standard of criteria. You stated "No policy basis for a deletion" and advance some reasoning that this article is somehow exempt from AFD.
My "personal opinion" is backed by facts and policies and guidelines whereas you support that a a state win is far and above notable, even if there are only primary sources, and a Miss Diaper USA win along with a state win is an exemption to WP:BIO1E. It appears you feel very strongly, with no actual policies, guidelines, or even essays, that the number of references matter more than the quality. You offered that multiple reliable sources show that the topic is not a hoax, is not disputed. While these are your opinions others do not agree. I went over every reference as evidenced from my comments, and I do not get paid for this, nor do I have any "goal" other than a good encyclopedia. You support that a state title holder is "enduring relevance" and yet there are one line career stubs from 2009 that still have only primary sources or none at all. To you, stating "Perfectly good article" is not "hyperbole". You just want others to "go away" and leave these non-compliant articles alone. Certainly if "you" were among those who want to do the work of the merger, you would read a book on how to get along with others and maybe one on collaboration. No amount of wishing will make a reference about a 4th place win even remotely relevant towards notability, international or not. There is no mandate anywhere that any article can not be deleted by consensus as the options at AFD are "delete", "redirect" or "merge". Have a nice day. Otr500 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2016 (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. MBisanz talk 01:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Triggering[edit]

The Triggering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable event. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found this article at Newsweek. The sources in the article don't really excite me, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources are present, and the Newsweek source cited above indicates the issues this event addressed are a significant and growing phenomenon. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic of this event is a discussion on censorship on the internet, and I think it would be quite ironic for the page to be deleted, especially with the arguments above. --Vami IV (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Deus Vult![reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has the nominatior heard about a little something called Template:Notability? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a storm in a bottle- the event is not notable because it has no lasting effect, nor in depth or lasting coverage. Policy specific to events says not notable enough for its own article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:EVENT. Anybody have any sources at all that aren't either local or WP:RS fails? Because there are none at all in the article, and I'm not seeing any others. We have local sources (mostly published by the school) on one hand, and alt-right blogs that will cover anything "political correctness" related on the other. The latter are not typically reliable, but can occasionally be reliable for the opininos of the authors or for facts regarding subjects on which they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is not one of those. Sort of like how we should delete an article about a diversity conference that's only covered by primary sources, Daily Kos, Think Progress, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and random Tumblr blogs. Update: NRP's comment was hidden among delsorts, so I missed newsweek (and it didn't come up in the first several pages of ghits for me). That's the best I've seen by far, but its two paragraphs aren't enough to pass WP:EVENT. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:GNG, especially in light of the Newsweek article another editor found. juju (hajime! | waza) 08:54, 3 November 2016 (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. MER-C 03:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Downfall of France’s Delegated Minister of Budget: Jérôme Cahuzac[edit]

The Downfall of France’s Delegated Minister of Budget: Jérôme Cahuzac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an essay, written as the editor's personal assessment of the subject. It appears to be rather one-sided, and so WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are not met. As this is a brand new article there isn't a good version to revert to, and its content would have to be reworked and checked against sources to be useful anywhere else. I speedy deleted this page as an attack article, but decided shortly after that it might not meet the relevant criteria for speedy deletion. Nick-D (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the BLP and NPOV violations are secondary to the fact that it's just fundamentally not an encyclopedia article (i.e. "This is an essay"). It is analysis, which makes it original research and uses Wikipedia as a soapbox. There are a lot of facts included, but it would take much work to rewrite it as a mere exposition of sourced facts, which is what a Wikipedia article needs to be. I would delete. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This matter is properly discussed at Jérôme Cahuzac, an article that can be expanded. We do not publish essays and opinion pieces masquerading as encyclopedia articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Reading through the creator's user page, the idea was apparently to create an English equivalent of fr:Affaire Cahuzac. However, the result is clearly not encyclopedic, especially in the sections after the background. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. I don't have the depth of background knowledge on French politics to know whether l'Affaire Cahuzac really meets the rarefied standard necessary to qualify for a standalone article as a separate topic from his existing WP:BLP. But what I do know for sure is (a) even if it does meet the notability standard for events, this as written is not the article that gets it there, and (b) his BLP on en is quite short and can accomodate the content without needing a separate spinoff (whereas his BPV en français is considerably longer). We do not write Wikipedia articles in the first person, for just one example of the many problems here. A neutral presentation in Jérôme Cahuzac would be fine; this, as written, is not. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, WP:NOTESSAY. Some of this can surely be incorporated into the main article, if it is done in a neutral manner. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an essay repo per WP:NOTESSAY. TushiTalk To Me 18:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTESSAY - but before doing it, move any non-OR material into Jérôme Cahuzac. These seems to be quite a lot of content that could be incorporated but it is not worded neutrally at the moment so will need to be rewritten. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY, Bearcat and Tiptoe. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon, I am currently working on a newer and meliorated version of the article, making appropriate modifications based on the comments above. Best Regards, your fellow WikipedianAMJM8 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an actual reason why we would need a standalone article about it, rather than simply addressing it in the article that already exists about Cahuzac? Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2016 (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 01:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Ruthven (born 1783)[edit]

John Ruthven (born 1783) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability: WP:NBIO. Most of the sources simply mention the man, and do not contain significant coverage about him, as is required by our notability criteria. The article was PRODded in 2013 shortly after creation, but the PROD was declined by the creator. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable engineer who just did his job. Meatsgains (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is genealogy information, not a biographical encyclopedia article. No plausible claim of notability is made. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The thing is, this page includes a section on his son John Folds Ruthven, who was the second locomotive superintendent of the Great North of Scotland Railway (in succession to Daniel Kinnear Clark, see steamindex page on the Great North of Scotland Railway) and such people are normally considered notable. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If the son is notable then we should have an article about the son, not include him in the article about his father. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The John Folds Ruthven content is the only thing there that is sourced in a non primary source. The rest looks a bit ORish since it is using available databases or primary sources. If his son's status is notable enough for an article, maybe rename this article to John Folds Ruthven and rewrite the content so that he is the primary subject? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I could go with that. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per precedent, e.g., Roderick_Wetherill#Roderick_Wetherill.2C_Jr.. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian: Merge to what? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to have already been merged, which it did not appear when I first read this discussion. His son, John Folds Ruthven, is already part of the article. So therefore, keep as is. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There was never a merge. The content concerning John Folds Ruthven was part of the original article. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable engineer. If his son was notable, a seperate article should be created, this article should not be renamed/merged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, selective merge, and redirect: Subject is non-notable. His son appears marginally notable but there's not enough material for a useful individual article. 1/ Delete John Folds Ruthven (a redirect); 2/ move this article to John Folds Ruthven to preserve history; 3/ selective merge to Great North of Scotland Railway (using a footnote to briefly outline personal information); and 4/ redirect this article to Great North of Scotland Railway#Locomotives (or a new sub-anchor). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MEMORIAL; no need to keep the article (merge / redirect) if it happens that another person mentioned is notable. If anyone would like to create such an article / add content elsewhere, they could easily move the content to their user space and do it from there, or request an admin do it for them after the fact. Since this ended up at AfD, let's just deal with this here. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- I am extremely dubious that a locomotive superintendent is notable per se, nor is a 19th century patentee. The rest is mere genealogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, the article is about Israel's failed qualification campaign, not their actual participation in the final tournament. Participating in qualifying campaigns is routine and lacks notability. Match information can be included in the national team's result pages, like England national football team results – 2000s.

In addition, I am nominating the following articles for deletion, as just like the 2014 World Cup, Israel did not qualify for the final tournament:

Mandatory Palestine at the 1934 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mandatory Palestine at the 1938 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1950 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1954 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1958 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1962 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1966 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1974 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1978 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1982 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1986 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1990 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1994 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1998 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2002 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2006 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2010 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2018 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect)
Israel at the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 1996 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2000 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2004 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2008 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2012 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2016 UEFA European Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2001 UEFA Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2005 UEFA Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2009 UEFA Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2013 UEFA Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel at the 2017 UEFA Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, the previous nomination resulted in keep due to the poor nomination process of a user. This nomination is much more concise and includes fewer articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of them was also renominated and it was unanimous to keep that one, so it wasn't just the way it was nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship (2nd nomination). - GalatzTalk 18:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the reason for a procedural close last time had nothing to do with the volume of articles, but was to do with the fact that articles were nominated across multiple sports. In this instance WP:NSPORT is not really relevant. I suppose, that WP:SPORTSEVENT can be stretched to apply here, but I would note the specific comments there that state:
Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.
I would ask you to demonstrate how you have attempted to follow these suggestions first and how any of the articles above are necessary per WP:SPINOFF and are not simply wholesale copy and pastes from wider continental qualification articles. For example Mandatory Palestine at the 1934 FIFA World Cup is a total C&P from 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification. The only addition is the copying of the team line up (which we would never normally show bar for specifically notable games) from the reference provided.
Essentially, there is no additional content in any of these, let alone sourced prose, so there is no need for any of these articles per WP:CFORK, nor any attempt made to follow WP:SPORTSEVENT to demonstrate the need for standalone articles prior to their creation. Finally, given that Israel have only qualified for the world cup once, the article titles are inherently misleading. Fenix down (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that certain content will be duplicated , it certainly is not all duplicated. The roster is one example. While I do agree many of the articles need expansion, the fact that it does I do not believe makes it a fork. You can go into much more detail than any other article would have.
Additionally there are tons of other examples on WP that this is a consistent formatting. For example, what makes this different than Israel at the 2002 Winter Olympics? Why is that needed if all of the information is available at Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics and Short track speed skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics. That article is also just basically statistics so do you think it should be deleted? What makes the Olympics deserve their own page but not the World Cup? - GalatzTalk 14:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issues I see with you view are as follows:
  1. Firstly these are all forks whether you like it or not.
  2. Secondly, the mere addition of rosters is not sourced prose and is just more stats.
  3. Thirdly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. However, the difference between the Olympic articles and the ones you have created is they have clear overlaps but also clear elements which. Israel at the 2002 Winter Olympics, covers only Israel, but all sports in which they competed, whereas Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics covers one sport, but all the nations that competed at that sport. Although related, they demonstrably cover different subjects. In the cases above, 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification covers qualification for the 1934 world cup for all countries, whereas Mandatory Palestine at the 1934 FIFA World Cup merely copies an element of it and adds nothing bar a list of players.
There is no useful new content in any of these articles with the possible exception of Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup because in this case they did actually qualify and so the overall article is a useful synthesis of information from multiple places to provide an overarching view. In all the others, this is simply not necessary, since all the information is already contained in one place. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Israel actually participated in the Olympics, but these articles listed are only about their failed tournament qualifications. As for the 1970 World Cup, I did not include it in this AfD, but I accidentally tagged the page, should be removed now. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference between them, however the way I am reading this, correct me if I am wrong, but you are attempting to use this AfD to draw a line the qualifying is notable but losing in the qualifier is not. If you look at Template:Brazil at the FIFA World Cup you can see Brazil has a page dedicated to each World Cup appearance since 1970. Lets say they don't qualify for the 2018 World Cup, would you say that automatically it cannot have its own article? That would be huge news and for sure would meet the criteria for WP:GNG. All I am seeing is an argument saying they didn't qualify so its not notable, but clearly that logic doesn't apply. If you read WP:MULTIAFD it says "bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy." To me that sounds exactly what you are trying to do, unless I am missing something. - GalatzTalk 16:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All your doing here though is copying and pasting information from one article to another new one without adding anything of substance that is new. WP:SPINOFF is already an established guideline, there is no consensus shaping here at all. I would recommend that your time is better spent trying to show wider GNG for these articles and populate them with sourced prose to support this assertion. Fenix down (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Brazil failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, it would be huge news since they're Brazil, and they've qualified for every World Cup ever, and I'm sure there would be mass suicides or something because soccer's just that big over there that that kind of thing would happen. You can't say Israel failing to qualify for the World Cup is all that newsworthy, seeing as they've only been to one in their history. It would be considered one of the biggest tragedies in national history if Brazil failed to qualify - not their sporting history, but their nation's history, period. So yes, that would probably be notable. But Israel is not Brazil in terms of their football team, or anywhere close to it. Brazil failing to qualify would be notable not in spite of, but because of the fact that they failed to qualify. That's not the case with Israel. Smartyllama (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree they need more expansion, but I do not believe the WP:GNG has not been met. I have already been compiling a list of RS to use to expand 2018 once it has enough games played to at least complete the first round. First example: Game 1 [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Game 2 [30] [31] [32] [33] Game 3 [34] [35] [36] [37]. Like I said, I don't disagree with them needing expandsion, you can call them stubs and I wont disagree with that, but I can't see them not meeting WP:GNG. - GalatzTalk 18:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so before you go down that route too far, finding a load of match reports and synthesising an article from them is not GNG. You need to find sources that discuss their world cup journey as a subject in itself. Match reporting is considered WP:ROUTINE as it is ubiquitous at almost any level. I'd also urge you to consider what multiple sources add that a single match report does not and whether that adds to any level of notability. why would you need to provide detailed match summaries in a bespoke article when a single sourced sentence in the national team article would cover it? Anyway, that is a discussion for another place. Fenix down (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some are results, some are previews where they discuss match ups and go more into the details and put it into context, which shows notability. At least the first 2 for each game I have listed above are the preview, not that results. Showing a wide variety of RS discussing the game more than just reporting on it, its not just a preplanned schedule, its more in depth, which makes it not WP:ROUTINE. - GalatzTalk 18:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most but keep Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup because they actually qualified for that. The rest are non-notable forks as I stated in the first nomination (which was procedurally closed for being cross-sported) but that one they actually qualified for, so it meets WP:GNG even if it doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS or whatever the appropriate sports policy is. Delete all as the 1970 article was not nominated for deletion and therefore its status isn't at issue. Rationale still stands. Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't the 2018 article be discussed at Redirects for Discussion rather than AfD because it's a redirect? Smartyllama (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. I concur with Smartyllama that the 2018 should not be included here since it is a redirect. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I invite an uninvolved administrator to review this relisting, and also the relisting habits of Democratics. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have undone my relisting but I am open for investigation as what Jkudlick said.Your welcome | Democratics Talk 11:03, 7 November 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_October_29&oldid=1142620742"