Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 December	29 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. A redirect may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean rape of Vietnamese women[edit]

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

This article appears to be about something either entirely fictional or of doubtful veracity. Its sources are either irrelevant or of doubtful reliability and context, and its author has been indefinitely blocked for tendentious editing in the topic, which puts his intentions in doubt. Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 23:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Title is awfully POV, and could probably be merged into the Vietnam War. Author being blocked is a bad sign. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncomfortable about articles about incidents that purportedly happened. Unconvinced that this passes WP:CRIME. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but must still make the point that it is pretty certain that far more Vietnamese women were raped by American and Vietnamese men during the Vietnam war than by South Korean men. This article picks out one nationality rather than address the general issue of rape in war, which happens in all wars and by all nationalities. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Very good point. The subject, and the project, would be better served with an article that takes broader look at the story. Something titled: "Victimization of Vietnamese women during the war" (or something along those lines) and have the article cover attacks of all types, sexual or otherwise, carried out by assailants of all nationalities involved. - ^theWOLFchild 18:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an apparent POV pushing agenda here concerning the ongoing push for compensation for Korean comfort women. So it is an example of the "what about" fallacy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does look like that. The "logic" used seems to be that the fact that some Korean men were rapists excuses the previous rape of Korean women. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the topic is described in much more depth at Lai Dai Han. Renata (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. That article provides a much better, and neutral, explanation of this issue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend that this article become a redirect to Lai Dai Han. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dont censor history. Fustos (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is nothing about censoring history. Renata has pointed out that we have an article about this topic that treats it properly, rather than in the biased way that this article does. We are (I hope) all agreed that rape, including in war, is a very bad thing. Let's not get away from that fact by presenting it as something that is dependent on the nationality of the perpetrators. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lai Đại Hàn, per the suggestion of Hawkeye7 above. This is a potential search term to that much better article.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or make changes, as per my comment above. - ^theWOLFchild 18:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written it does not provide any useful info. If there is anything here, that should be merged to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks poorly sourced as a stand alone article, but maybe a merging is suggested to another articles. It may be worth putting in as a section of the Vietnam war article. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Wm. Gunn[edit]

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

A mostly self-published poet. Published in some obscure magazines, but Google turns up nothing like a substantive source on which an actual article can be based. Previously kept in a thinly-attended AfD in which the article creator opined that the quality of the subject's writing should be sufficient to offset the absence of reliable independent sources. Er, no, that's not how it works. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates he is actually a notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is indeed published, however there seems to be zero critical coverage of his work. Notability not met.104.163.153.162 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that he passes WP:AUTHOR for anything, and no quality reliable source coverage — in fact, I get zero hits in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstream database for him at all, even when expanding Wm to William. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the sources are either not independent or not substantial enough and the article overly promotional based on the consensus here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Tenner[edit]

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

Promotional article for Non notable "event pro of the year" , written by declared pad editor for a cliet (or former client). Organized conferences, wrote one chapter of one book, consulted for various people/ Not a single reliable third party source--nearest is an advertorial in Las Vegas Review-Journal. Previous afd was non-consensus/ DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Promotional article created by paid editor. Sourcing is poor.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Nothing even close to showing notability. Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep [1] appears to be a reliable independent source as does [2]. [3] is a reliable source that provides a bit of coverage and there are links to sources that sound reasonable but aren't available on-line. Looks to meet WP:N, though also seems far too promotional. Also finding _lots_ of passing mentions in books. Hobit (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She works in the poker industry , not very surprising from someone in Las Vegas, so her PR agent placed an article in Poker News. Similarly the others read as obvious advertorials. Furthermore, being highly promotion, to the point that rewriting beyond routine editing is necessary, is by itself a sufficient reason for deletion--even speedy deletion by G11. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete paid PROMO. Agricola44 (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Promotionalism only for an nn individual. The Review Journal article ([4]) does not appear to be a reliable independent source as it's advertorially-toned and is based on the interview with the subject. The other sources are WP:SPIP as well. Should have been deleted at the first AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You are discounting an article from the Las_Vegas_Review-Journal because you don't like it tone? Oyi. Hobit (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discounting it because it's based on the interview with the subject. It's not a source that's intellectually independent of the subject, hence it's not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Marker[edit]

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

fails ANYBIO. NOTMEMORIAL also applies. John from Idegon (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Talreja[edit]

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

A directory-listing page on an unremarkable DJ and music producer. Significant RS coverage not found. Article is sourced to passing mentions, WP:PRIMARY and / or WP:SPIP sources. Created by Special:Contributions/Parth.shah3593 currently indef blocked as a spam-only account. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harris M. Lentz[edit]

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

Non-notable author. I can't find any sources other than passing mentions or primary sources. He appears to be an obit writer of sorts but with no coverage of him. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by the extraordinary extent of citations to this researcher's work. Even if that weren't the case he has an entry on an existing encyclopedia, sonhis notability is established. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy Notability is not established by the equivalent of a directory entry on encyclopedia.com. There is no coverage and if he's so widely cited, please provide a reliable source establishing such. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of 3rd-party secondary sources about him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Harris M. Lentz III has produced an impressive number of reference books, some of which have been given routine reviews in library science journals (e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), I don't think this satisfies WP:AUTHOR or WP:SCHOLAR and very little can be written other than a list of books. The Encyclopedia.com entry appears adapted from a Gale Writers Directory, which may simply give an entry to anyone who applies (see footnote 6 at WP:BASIC). --Animalparty! (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Morris[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources that cover the company in any detail, Google News didn't bring up anything useful. Huon (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate Spam, possibly qualifies for a speedy delete. Fails WP:SPIP, no indications of notability, fails GNG, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burton Speiser[edit]

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

This is a just a CV with no indication of third party coverage. Previous AfD was no consensus. Billhpike (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've notified participants in the previous AfD. Billhpike (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I checked and couldn't find independent sources that assert his notability. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL, fails WP:PROF. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my first nomination of this article at AfD, which turned into a classic example of why "no consensus" should not equate to "keep" in AfDs. WP:BURDEN should apply to notability, not merely verifiability. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I note that nobody above has commented on the subject's citation record with respect to WP:PROF#C1. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Barney & Friends. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Wirtz[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actress. I propose either deletion or a redirect to Barney & Friends as that is the only thing this person is known for and I can find virtually no in-depth coverage of this person other than mentions in books (just mentions, no coverage) and imdb. Previous redirect has been contested, so taking here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Barney and Friends#Characters and cast; the contester is on their way to some kind of block so I assume this will end quickly. ~~This can be closed~~. Nate • (chatter) 19:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time, the redirect has been undone and the author "only" temporarily blocked, so the discussion should continue. Favonian (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they're not going to compromise to this. The subject only did this one thing for WP:N so I continue to insist on redirecting to the program itself. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is hard to get publicity for being a voice actress. The lack of reliable and in-depth coverage as far as sources in the article given her role of a voice actress for one show is to be expected. Looking for sources is probably not worth doing.Knox490 (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the sentiment that it's not worth looking for sources. Sources are what it's all about. If you don't put in the effort to search, then you're just guessing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barney and Friends#Characters and cast. Wirtz is notable for this singular role as B.J., and that's about it. Here's the source to show it on Behind The Voice Actors. [10] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barney & Friends. Wirtz is only mentioned in the inforbox in the current version of the article, which makes for a kind of weird redirect, so maybe mention her in some appropriate place in the body as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 MSA British Rallycross Championship season[edit]

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

Zero content apart from a list of dates. Simply not worth an article in its current state, and likely would struggle to meet notability and find sources even with a better effort. QueenCake (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. It doesn’t seem that this page has any notability and is just a list of dates without any context. Garuda28 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bordering on speedy delete. As mentioned above, no background info, context or anything to suggest that this is a notable topic. Rallycross is a niche sport these days receiving little to no media coverage, even the Autosport website only puts up World Rallycross articles. National championships don't get a mention. Mattg82 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Cullen[edit]

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

This is a writer who does not seem to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Originally created by Marcullen, so also a likely autobiography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reliable sources not generated by the author that would pass notability, besides the Patch article.Angryapathy (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete many order of magnitude below the level of notability. When an article says the subject wrote "local newsletters" that pretty much screams not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With only the Patch web news article to back up notability, this article fails WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One profile in a local newspaper so minor that we don't even have an article about it is far from enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but be open to keep if better sourcing found. This writer does not appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. She appears to have a solid writing career and have at least some noteworthiness. But better sources need to be found in terms of reliable sourcing. Knox490 (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Colloidal gold. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gold sol[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

1) poor formatting 2)no citations 3) reads like it is either original research or was copied from a paper EvilxFish (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

discovered the article is a copy and paste job from this paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021979784712100 EvilxFish (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the paper is non-free, I have marked it as G12. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete straightaway. Copypaste from the abstract is evidence enough. Rhadow (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: good pick up. The article had versions which did not contain the copvio above and was salvageable from G12. The copyios have been WP:REVDEL-d. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Colloidal gold. Duplicate.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Weaver[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. What little coverage is out there is very local. [11] NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article has existed without reliable sources for six years. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON--perhaps this can be revisited after a notable professional career has been established. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previously expressed opinion. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMOTORSPORT. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More power to him in his racing career, but this is simply WP:TOOSOON. Even at the national level, a Legends or Bando championship isn't high enough on the ladder to confer notability, and while he did win a touring series championship (SRL S2 in 2014) that's so far down the ladder you need a telescope to see it - if we were comparing it to baseball, it'd be rookie league, not even single-A. If and when he moves up and starts winning higher-level touring series championships, we can revisit this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, The Bushranger, for clarifying with authority what some of us suspected. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – have found very little to no sources to indicate that the subject meets WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. CookieMonster755 ✉ 20:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While sources exists, consensus seems to be they lack the depth of coverage needed to meet our notability standards. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Shroyer[edit]

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

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

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

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

An Infowars "journalist". The first eight pages of Google showed nothing that could be used as a WP:RS to establish notability. The sources currently cited are either dubious or trivial, wit the exception of "Radio host protests 'police state' in Ferguson". This is WP:BLP1E territory, if that. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article from Evening Standard, Daily Mail & book reference also aren't trivial.

There's little doubt he's a rising star of the alt right.

We may not agree with him, but I'd say he's definitely notable, and someone people will be looking up... Wiki page stats show this isn't a dead page. I can't stand him but still contributed to the page (from the UK) because of the buzz around him here.

22:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.190.189 (talk) — 80.193.190.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is full of deleted articles on people who are "rising". We have articles once they have risen. And I'm in the UK, what "buzz" are you talking about? Admittedly I never read the Daily Heil. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His show was Twitter UK's chosen live stream for the Alabama elections. Weekday live show (from the little I've seen) seems to average around 10K viewers. He's also been named in the Scottish Herald, Boston Globe, NY Mag, The Guardian and My Statesman. When a name is being used in newspaper articles like that, I do expect to be able to look up who I'm reading about! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.239.206.125 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.239.206.125 (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC) — 91.239.206.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and as such fails WP:BIO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding lots of coverage of this fringe media personality. In Vox, Slate, and elsewhere. For example, here's an article largely about his work (even if the headline features Alex Jones) see here. The Wikipedia entry should reflect his provocateur efforts and involvement in promoting conspiracy theories. His notability is established by coverage he's received. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That example is about InfoWars, not Owen Shroyer, and contains no information about him other than that he narrated a video, so does not constitute significant coverage of Shroyer. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 23:28, 26 December 2017‎ Keep He genuinely meets the notability criteria as well as being subject of discussion in various reliable sources. This shouldn't even be a contentious issue. Changing to delete out of protest. LaceyUF (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC) — LaceyUF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not true, I am an IP editor who only decided to log into a non-IP account so that I could comment on this AFD from a normal wikipedia account which I thought had a longer edit history than what it turned out having. See my talk page or read the ani for details. LaceyUF (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit while logged out to avoid scrutiny of your edits, as it appears you have done, you can hardly take credit for those edits when it's convenient for you to do so. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, your editing is limited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. I'm taking the high road on this one. LaceyUF (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CU blocked socks. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I created this page after seeing a number of people I "follow" on Twitter discussing Owen and his work during his Alabama coverage. I apologise if I didn't use the best references - there were so many others I could have used but I chose the ones that I considered best out of the many pages and search results I came across "at the top" of Google. I realise much of this may be "self-generated", but there was equally genuine external coverage (both positive and negative). It is the first page I've created and any feedback on how I can improve it much appreciated. MattiasDhlb (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MattiasDhlb (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. - edits match 80.193.190.189, may be a duplicate !vote.[reply]
Keep As above. 80.193.190.189 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC) — 80.193.190.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Seems like a well-balanced and sourced article about a figure who's meeting genuine notability requirements. Can understand why someone may want it deleted, maybe put the page under protection for the vandalism that's almost bound to follow? Jacquimunroe (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC) — Jacquimunroe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Oscar's Oasis (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mainstream media coverage is limited to a single incident. No ongoing coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Billhpike (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Quasi BLP-1E.Dearth of non-trivial sig. covg.Fails GNG.Winged Blades^Godric 02:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability requirement.In books and multiple reports in MSM. Without political motivation I don't see why this was marked for deletion. 23.226.133.165 (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC) — 23.226.133.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. We don;t allow editing by open proxies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is from an open proxy. (I’m WP:IPBE and I recognize this IP block as being used by a major VPN provider.) Billhpike (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fleeting, insubstantial coverage. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –Clsssic example of bare minumum BLP whith apparent namedropping with CNN journalist to boost notability. No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and no any special achievement to pass WP:ANYBIO. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not a notable journalist, no matter what all the meat puppets and sockpuppets say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

string of 6 delete votes in under 6 hours? How is the ani discussion not seen as blatant canvassing? nobody likes sockpuppets but what's worse is the shady tactics by people who game the system. good riddance, LaceyUF (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a report of evident (and now proven) sockpuppetry on a public noticeboard is not canvassing. When an attempt at stuffing the ballot box via sockpuppetry is detected by the Wikipedia community, a frequent autoimmune response is for editors in good standing, who have now had their attention drawn to the issue, to examine the dispute and, usually, simply vote the other way that the sockpuppets voted. (In general, if you need sockpuppetry to survive, you probably don't have policy behind you anyway.) In this way, organized sockpuppetry campaigns are disincentivized because when and if they are discovered, they will not only fail but fail deadly in that they will likely result in exactly the opposite of the sockmaster's desired outcome. There is nothing "shady" about denying a victory to people who intentionally abuse our systems. The lesson that should be learned here is evident - don't abuse sockpuppets and don't intentionally disrupt the encyclopedia for personal self-aggrandizement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a refreshingly honest reply. So what then am I to do when I vote on an AFD (see here) and then out of nowhere all this chaos/drama ensues over the past 48 hours? You seem to be aboveboard; and we both know how this AFD will end. Assuming a case could be made in favor of Owen Shroyer's notability, am I correct in my assessment that now isn't the time? LaceyUF (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From London's Evening Standard:

"Then there is Owen Shroyer. He is a Texan native and an anchor at InfoWars, a swivel-eyed, conspiratorial news website that has been called “fake news”. He was recruited off the back of a YouTube series, where he would posit emphatic conservative observations about organisations such as the Clinton Foundation.".

"Shroyer is a disciple. When Jones was impugned by “four different sources” including comedian Seth Meyers and US cable television network CSPAN, Shroyer uploaded a video to his YouTube account, where he has almost 19,000 subscribers, defending Jones."

"Shroyer has 13,000 followers on Twitter and his pinned tweet is a quasi-poem which reads, “Go Trump go!/Go Trump go!/Hey America, what do you say? Trump is going to win today!”. It has been liked 1,200 times and retweeted 447 times."

"The new lexicon": "The movement has its own language and rhetorical style. There are keywords like “cuck”, which — in Shroyer’s words — refers to “someone who is weak-minded or will kowtow to whatever authority says. They’re never gonna question anything and they’re never gonna look into anything for themselves.” Shroyer’s fans call him the “cuck destroyer”.

"On Twitter, Shroyer attaches the hashtag #helltothenaw to liberal opinions with which he disagrees; spelling “no” as “naw” suggests a Rust Belt dialect — the white, working-class areas where Trump picked up much of his support."

"He also uses words like “wussification” (“The wussification of America ends now,” he tweeted. “You want a safe space? Stay home. #americaisback”). It speaks to the masculinity of the Trump movement. "

We can certainly delete the entry because we don't like the subject or because his supporters came out to vote for keeping the article, but it's false to say this provocateur and conspiracy monger hasn't been covered substantially in a wide variety of reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FloriadaArmy: You've tried but that ingle news cannot establish notability. Basic notability guideline WP:GNG requires significant coverage from multiple independent sources. That's why I linked bare minimum above. If we decide notability by news like this, only few people will not have article on Wikipedia. Ammarpad (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St.Louis Dispatch, Salon article, Daily Dot, AOL, The Tab, Slate, Bustle, VOX, CNN, Vice, Austin American Statesman, and extensive coverage in Evening Standard piece quoted above. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose we accept that Evening Standard article as substantial coverage—which, I'm not sure I do, but we'll suppose so for now. What could his article contain? Basically all it does already, which is fleeting coverage of a couple of one-off events. ~~Quasi-stub~~. ETA: Really it would be aspiring for stub status. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article should state who he is and what he does. It should note that he's developed a following on various interweb venues as well as the controversies he's been involved in. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These trivial, passing mentions establish that he wears racist t-shirts and that he got laughed at by a little girl. FloridaArmy, it seems you like to blow up everything, but "controversy" is an overused word, and the GNG requires "significant coverage"--not a bunch of "look at this fucking idiot" mentions on websites. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the subject's 15 minutes of fame do not rise to the level of encyclopedic relevance. WP:TOOSOON at the present time. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After a first quick scan, I thought I would be closing this AfD as "delete." When I went back to read the arguments more carefully, I was not convinced by any of the arguments for deletion. Nobody has convincingly addressed the significant, independent coverage that FloridaArmy has brought up in multiple sources. Most of the arguments for deletion simply say "not notable" without a discussion of existing coverage. A few individuals arguing for deletion reveal in their arguments that they simply don't like Shroyer's politics or they personally think Shroyer should not be notable. I don't like Shroyer either, but you cannot deny that he has become "worthy of notice" and has the required notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Malinaccier I was looking to close this. Having reviewed the articles provided I don't think the coverage quite reaches the point we are looking for to do a BLP. There is no doubt the subject has a talent for self-publicity but a stream a marginal events is still an article that says at the end of the day he has a podcast and a radio show and he says things that get reactions. That's not much to hang an article around and I'd like to see some in depth sources for a BLP that could easily become negative and unbalanced before we host this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge in a to-be-created Infowars article (currently part of the Alex Jones article). The coverage is more about the website and its antics than about Shroyer as a person. We should first have an article about the medium before covering its collaborators who are known only for being its collaborators. Sandstein 12:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I just read the sources provided by User:FloridaArmy. The St Louis Today piece was promising and I was leaning to keep but the rest were either about him being called an "(expletive deleted) idiot" or Jones or InfoWars. I came to the same conclusion as User:Sandstein, if there was a InfoWars page a merge would be the perfect action here, but alas that is not the reality of the situation. --J04n(talk page) 14:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Now that InfoWars exists I'm changing my !vote to merge --J04n(talk page) 15:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a very reasonable suggestion. I was unaware there wasn't an entry for InfoWars. I have expanded it with content from this entry and redirecting this entty there seems a reasonable outcome. 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Although it seems like an awful lot to merge..? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to merge everything. --J04n(talk page) 15:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite looking like a WP:SNOW delete, User:Malinaccier's argument has engendered some last-minute discussion which I don't want to cut off. So I'm relisting this to give people a chance to respond fully to User:Malinaccier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of the sustained, indepth third party coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He had had a fair bit of coverage (mainly over being sworn at by a kind , bit others stuff as well). But there is not a great deal here really.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep Article needs improvement to stand alone and more references. However if so many people voting to delete this have heard of him and know enough to have an opinion on, by implication, it suggests he is notable even if currently lacking in publicity outside of IW.Wikizenx (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)— Wikizenx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not one of the people supporting deletion has stated having heard of this person before taking part in this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had not heard of him before dropping in either. But no, it's not relevant. Malinaccier (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are asking me, as implied by the indentation, then my comment was perfectly relevant because it responded directly to a statement by Wikizenx. It is that original statement that is irrelevant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The short namechecks in a handful of sources do not meet the notability requirements of the Wikipedia. One does not get famous or notable for a series of "says a stupid thing, a source or two calls what he says stupid:, rinse and repeat, there has to be pierces that discuss the person in-depth. Otherwise its just a hagiography for his fans and a dartbord for his critics. TheValeyard (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter S. Jones[edit]

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

After looking through the sources on this page I have found that they do not indicate notability of this author [12] is probably the best argument for notability and it is a single article in a news organization, this citation is actually the first 2 in the list. The next citation [13] is a passing reference in an online magazine, that is run by the Historical Writers' Association, an online forum of Historical Writers.

Next we have [14] an article by Jones in the same online magazine, there is no indication this receive any 2nd party review or reference. We then have [15] Past Preservers looks more like an agent for "experts" to get gigs. The next citation is from youtube. Then [16] we have another article by Hunter Jones, where most of the articles published on the site come from an open submissions process.

The next citation is from hunterjones.com website. Them [17] give me a File or directory notice error, again from a local newpaper. [18] The next source gives me a 404 Not Found Error. [19] Then there is another article written by Hunter.

The next citation is probably the second best argument for notability and that is [20] Current Fellows and Members, as I do not know what it takes to be a Fellow or a member in the Royal Historical Society I will let others determine if that provides enough notability to be included. Next the Articel Cites [21] The Society of Authors and lists Hunter Jones as a member. This is a trade union that essentially anyone can join.

Next we have a list of winners of a non-notable award [22]. Then we have an online book publishing company [23].

We then come to our last citation that is worth any note and again it is from a Local news source [24] a short article on a book signing. The last two citations only direct you to places where you can buy her books. Based on my analysis I do not see how this individual meets the notability standards of Wikipedia. VViking_TalkEdits 15:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+++Historia Magazine is an accredited magazine with an ISSN number. The Historical Writer Association is a highly esteemed group of best selling authors who are accepted based on valid, actual selling criteria.+++

+++The Dangerous Women Project was a highly curated, global project lead by Scotland's University of Edinburgh+++

===The Society of Authors was found by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. This is not a 'trade union' that just anyone can join--this is a selective group with an historic pedigree. A Board of Directors must vote on admission to the group based on the individual's achievements as an author.=== ^[1]

===MadeGlobal Publishing's author Claire Ridway has a Wiki page based on her work with MadeGlobal. What's the difference? Why are you bullying Ms. Jones when she has more valid sales and academic achievements?+++

===Valid citations from newspapers, magazines, the academic community, along with an official Facebook page, and Wikimedia project inclusions make me vote to leave the page as as noteworthy.===— Preceding unsigned comment added by JCC1930 (talk • contribs) 28 December 2017 (UTC). Moved from inline response and signature marked by Hydronium Hydroxide 15:31, 5 May 2024 UTC [refresh]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see how she meets GNG or WP:AUTHOR (which seems to be her main thing, she also has a imdb entry - imdb) - definitely not with the sources in the article, and not with what I see in a BEFORE. This might be a WP:TOOSOON - as it seems she is releasing/appearing at a fairly high pace.Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim of being a "best-selling" author would seem to be questioned by the fact that her main work, September Ends, is not held by any libraries, according to WorldCat. Taken with the SPA history, this is almost certainly a vanity page. Please excuse some end-of-the-year venting of frustration, but WP's agenda of "inclusion", etc., is taking it toward being a worldwide directory of all of humanity. The slow and manual process of AfD & PROD will be losing ground faster and faster as time goes on. Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<===The University of Edinburgh's article states that she is a Romance Writers of America (PAN member). To become a PAN member of that group, an author must submit via a publisher that they have sold over 5000 copies of a book within a small time span. With the article being published in 2016, that information would've been supplied by MadeGlobal Publishing due to sales of her Anne Boleyn story, Phoenix Rising. Definitive proof of the best seller claim. RWA (PAN) membership is a highly respected and widely recognized accolade.Likewise, Rivendell Writers Colony is has a merit based membership and is hishly exclusive === ^[2] ^[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by JCC1930 (talk • contribs) 28 December 2017 (UTC). Indented and signature marked by Hydronium Hydroxide 15:31, 5 May 2024 UTC [refresh]

Comment. You appear to have little appreciation for the notability requirements. What you say may be true, but it doesn't have demonstrated reliability. So, for example, the WorldCat entry for Phoenix Rising shows that it is held by precisely 2 institutions. The context in which you throw around the label "best selling author" is not what that term is understood to mean here at WP. This person is not even close to being notable by standard criteria. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There have been irregular actions including at least one instance of socking on the page. And despite that activity and repeated requests/advice, direct evidence has yet to be identified that one or more of her works actually meet WP:NBOOK. The less direct proofs and sources against WP:NAUTHOR haven't stood up to scrutiny. Neither Society of Authors nor RHS memberships provide any evidence of notability. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Notability is borderline at best, and with all the other issues of promotional stuff, socking, etc., I don't see a good justification to keep. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.societyofauthors.org/
^ http://dangerouswomenproject.org/2016/06/16/belle-boyd/
^ http://rivendellwriterscolony.org/

Very dubious -- Neither society membership points to notability. A fellowship of Roy Hist Soc might. Contributing to an academic project at University of Edinburgh is not enough either. I do not know any of her books and thus cannot judge their merit. FRom the article, I am not clear how far she is writing history and how far historical novels. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Found no independent reliable sources that cover her in-depth as a writer. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imambargah Colonel Maqbool Hussain[edit]

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

Almost unsourced article about an Imambargah (or funeral home). BEFORE shows passing mentions. Note concurrent AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maqbool Hussain Zaidi who founded this family run Imambargah Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - started by SPA User_talk:Saebiz, no significant coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and reads like WP:COI.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TrixieCat123's opinion does not address the reason for deletion and is therefore discounted. Sandstein 15:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Character Options[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Many of the sources are the company website. The rest is mostly product/licensing announcements - which seems to be what is available out there in a BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a good-faith contribution rather than an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion like the last version, but I'm not seeing evidence of notability. There are a scattering of mentions in trade publications, but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notability is the multiple billion-dollar brands that it creates toys for, like Pokemon, Doctor Who, and Scooby Doo. It also has several different sources that certainly meets the requirement of "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" and "Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The only source that doesn't meet requirements are the one's from the Character Options website. I didn't create this article, but I have contributed to it and do not see any reason for deletion. —Formal Dude^(talk) 23:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion. The only reason I created this page is for people to understand what Character Options is and without a Wikipedia article to go by, it would've been difficult. So, I decided to make a resourceful article on it. I try my best to improve this article and with FormalDude contributing it was really helping until this was nominated for deletion. I'll do what ever I can to improve this article -User:TrixieCat123 User talk:TrixieCat123 19:01, 28 December 2017 (Mountain Time)

delete The company's name makes searching a bit difficult, but I can't find any in-depth independent eliable sources other than maybe [25]. That said, I'd expect a company like this with 200 employees really should have reliable sources that count toward WP:N. But I can't find them. If someone does find some, please ping me and I'll take a look. Hobit (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: I've found at least four sources about the company from websites that provide company portfolios. Here, here, here, and here. —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are standard company directories available for most UK companies. companieshouse is a government website that makes available all company reports to company house - of any size company.Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not really counting those as meaningfully in-depth. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability - entirely promotional article. Fails WP:SPIP, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, references fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited - that is, just because some of the products this company manufactured may be for notably characters from movies, etc, this does not mean that the notability of those characters bestows notability on the manufacturer. Also, there appears to be some misinterpretation of "independent of the subject" - this does not mean that the publisher of a reference must be an independent corporate entity from the company. Routine listings in Bloomberg and the Companies Office fail WP:CORPDEPTH, references such as this one from kidscreen.com provide no information on the company and are mere mentions-in-passing, thereby also fails CORPDEPTH, references such as this one are based on company announcements with no independent analysis or opinion and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 15:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Square Toiletries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete No indications of notability, references are either broken or are not intellectually independent (i.e. they rely on company announcements or interviews or are run-of-the-mill business listings). Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I'm aware this article was nominated a short time ago but the nomination was withdrawn. After reviewing the previous AfD, I believe there was enough reason to continue with the AfD. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The dead links were easily repaired. Between the references and further reading there is easily significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, so the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question .. can you link here to any references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would start with this 15-page chapter, written by a notable academic, in a book from a scholarly press: Andaleeb, Syed Saad (2017). "Square Toiletries Ltd & Senora: Overcoming Cultural Taboos". In Andaleeb, Syed Saad; Hasan, Khalid (eds.). Strategic Marketing Mangaement in Asia. Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 190–204. ISBN 978-1-78635-746-5. Of the other sources listed in the article, my top three picks would be [26][27][28] The remainder do not go into as much depth, but are useful for specific points, and per WP:CORPDEPTH may be combined to help establish notability. (It would also be profitable to search by brand. Some, like Meril, are arguably better known than the company that makes them.) --Worldbruce (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Square Group of Industries - One of the notable conglomerates in Bangladesh. This one is a subsidiary of the group. We can keep this as a section of the parent. - Mar11 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We'd still need references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty... HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be useful to have an article on Square Group (Bangladesh) (or whatever the best title would be) in order to tie together Samson H. Chowdhury, Tapan Chowdhury, Anjan Chowdhury (executive), Square Pharmaceuticals, Square Toiletries, Square Textiles, Maasranga Television, and the remaining half-dozen (maybe not notable) subsidiaries. Square Toiletries, however, has the notability to stand on its own, even if it isn't much of an article right now, so I'm not sure it makes sense to re-purpose it as the conglomerate parent. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Meets GNG, here is a profile on the company by The Daily Star, the largest circulated English Language newspaper in Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Galatz ^Talk 22:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard O'Shaughnessy[edit]

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

Non-notable person holding non-notable job Galatz ^Talk 14:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 14:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 14:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails GNG, NATHLETE, etc. South Nashua (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: In view of the rescue efforts and the nominator's WP:HEY comments below, would you consider withdrawing your "Delete" vote? Cbl62 (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Wow, big improvement there. Yeah, My bad on this one. Happy to change to a Keep. Unsure why the article creator just didn't add all of that in the first place. South Nashua (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Served as captain of an elite, ranked American football team, won All-Big Ten and Catholic All-America honors, won back-to-back Big Ten heavyweight wrestling championships, and received coverage both as a football player and as a champion wrestler and coach. Cbl62 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the version I nominated [29] vs the version Cbl62 has fixed it to here [30]. WP:HEY may now apply. - Galatz ^Talk 16:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The article was a real mess at the time of the nomination. I have undertaken some rescue efforts this morning. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a good amount of independent third party coverage, more than enough to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the brilliant expansion work. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. Per the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2013. Sandstein 15:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2010[edit]

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

Duplicated at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. No reason to cover the same information by year-by-year. –dlthewave ☎ 14:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s, as a reasonable alternative search term per WP:ATD-R. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a reason why the 2010 article is being singled out in particular? Because there are thirty other articles just like this one, for the last 30 years of music. This discussion of one year doesn't really make sense. A new one discussing them collectively is probably a better choice. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I had attempted to redirect them all the individual year lists working backwards (2017 back to 1990). All they were "this is a list of number ones on this chart for this year" while the newer decade lists were well-organized and comprehensive without becoming a sprawling, cluttered mess. During that process, an editor reverted back to the original lists for 2010 on. A redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s should be sufficient as clearly a WP:CFORK. This one has not been singled out but nominated separately from the others; I'm not sure why they weren't bundled together, however. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Unfortunately the software doesn't do it automatically, you have to follow instructions at WP:MULTIAFD and take it from there. @Sergecross73:, what if these were withdrawn and then re-filed as one bundle? It would ensure that they got consistent treatment. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I nominated the 2010-2014 articles and User:Atsme nominated 2015-2016. It's turning into a bit of a mess. Should I withdraw them so that they can be bundled? I'm not quite familiar with that process. –dlthewave ☎ 18:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd say what's done is done and just let these run their course. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        ...hopefully remembering to bundle the other 26 ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Its gonna be messy if these separate discussions come to different conclusions. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. This is Billboard's intellectual property, a creative work that we do not have the right to reproduce in full, even with credit. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of rationale would have us deleting all the Billboard and similar music chart articles. We have hundreds of them, some existing for over a decade. I highly doubt we've overlooked hundreds of high profile copyright violations for years. This is an overzealous interpretation of COPYVIO. If it's deleted, it won't be due to this... Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could be an issue if a published chart was being reproduced here in full (say each 1-100 song and its position on the current Hot 100), but that is not the case. I know it's been discussed before and lists such as these presented in this manner are not a copyright violation. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. Per the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2013. Sandstein 15:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2011[edit]

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

Duplicated at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. No reason to cover the same information by year-by-year. –dlthewave ☎ 14:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s, as a reasonable alternative search term per WP:ATD-R. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SN54129. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. This is Billboard's intellectual property, a creative work that we do not have the right to reproduce in full, even with credit. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. Per the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2013. Sandstein 15:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2012[edit]

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

Duplicated at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. No reason to cover the same information by year-by-year. –dlthewave ☎ 14:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s, as a reasonable alternative search term per WP:ATD-R. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SN54129. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. This is Billboard's intellectual property, a creative work that we do not have the right to reproduce in full, even with credit. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. Like SeraphWiki, and other than Jclemens, I think that these are uncopyrightable facts. That aside, everybody thinks that this definitively shouldn't be an article, so a redirect with a deletion to avoid reverting appears sensible. Sandstein 15:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Alternative Songs of 2013[edit]

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

Duplicated at List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s. No reason to cover the same information by year-by-year. –dlthewave ☎ 14:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s, as a reasonable alternative search term per WP:ATD-R. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are several of these articles by date per the nom (2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017) at AfD, all of which should be deleted as unneccessary content forks of List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 2010s, a comprehensive list that is not in need of any spin-offs. We've had a few issues with the redirects being consistently reverted, so it's better to just delete them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...then we protect the redirects? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SN54129. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. This is Billboard's intellectual property, a creative work that we do not have the right to reproduce in full, even with credit. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not necessarily ... it's not a copy of their selection and arrangement, it's a compilation of their number one songs from several different lists. That said ... maybe, it could be. I don't know. SeraphWiki (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rare Futures. Sandstein 15:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams of Water[edit]

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

Utterly WP:NN album, not released on any major label by a marginally notable band. All reviews are from obscure sites. Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rare Futures, the album is mentioned there. Agree that is does not meet requirements for a standalone page --J04n(talk page) 14:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (merging any sourced information) per J04n~~, although suggest target is Happy Body Slow Brain, being~~ to the umbrella article: WP:ATD-R. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Body Slow Brain redirects to Rare Futures ;) --J04n(talk page) 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They must've changed their name while I was out :) thanks for that, adjusted acordingly. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Feigen Fasteau[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage to meet GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Basically this is a successful businessman, who was married to a notable woman and at one point wrote a non-notable book. J04n(talk page) 13:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the coverage is neither sufficiently persistent or of the depth required to pass the basic norms of WP:ANYBIO. Sole sourcing is almost only from one local newspaper regarding one particular issue. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a 100% unsourced article, that either is original research, or lacks any transparency on sources. The one listed source is not about him, but a book he wrote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Zabel[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable real estate developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable as either an entrepreneur or "an international specialist in real estate development". The article borders on G11 with its puffed up language and self-promotion. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discounting the opinion by blocked sock Genome$100. Sandstein 15:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future of food[edit]

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

Several issues: a) contents already well covered in Food security and associated articles; b) essay-style under unsuitable title and with too-broad focus; c) reads as personal synthesis, although it actually may consist completely of material paraphrased from a single source that pops up a dozen times in the references - without making this POV clear; c) would in any case have to be rewritten completely to achieve an encyclopedic and NPOV tone (and intelligible grammar), although that's the least problem. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article is a POV issue. Also I don't understand why all of the sources are in Chinese.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are all in Korean, not Japanese. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article quality is WP:TNT worthy in parts, but this seems to be a plausible topic and I don't see any existing articles on the subject. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that isn't covered by Food security or one of the articles prominently section-linked from there (with the exception of the insect protein thing, possibly). Which bits did you have in mind? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "how are we going to feed so many people" content is all covered there. The part on "what new foods may be invented in the future" isn't covered anywhere. Insects as food (as Entomophagy) is a separate stand-alone article, and I'm not sure why it's relevant. I'd be interested in more Cultured meat-type content in an article on the "future of food". As a practical matter, my vote is Redirect to Food security, which is a fairly high-level/overview article and a plausible redirect target; expanding the "Use of genetically modified (GM) crops" section to be more widely about "research" would allow everything to be covered there. I see no reason to merge any content as part of the AfD process; any requests can be discussed on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic is worthwhile having. Some of the content is also discussed in English language shources, for example eating insects. Probably nearly everything needs rewriting though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article. Keep content, but move it. The content belongs to the article Food shortage. I could see the content improving the current skeletal article of "Food shortage". But I would expand the content with the pros and cons of the controversy of future food shortages/surpluses, etc. Knox490 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is in that article that is not in Food security and connected articles? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.

Keep per Graeme Bartlett. The article is properly written and well sourced. In future more English sources will be added by fellow Wikipedians. This type of knowledge article are very much essential for wiki readers. Genome$100 (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bartlett; this is fundamentally a question of whether the sourcing verifies its claim to notability, and, whilst it leans perhaps rather too heavily towards one particular source, per WP:NOENG, the fact that they are Korean (and German?) does not stand against them. The arguments favouring deletion rather tend themselves towards WP:AADD: reading as an essay, being poorly written, and that it should be TNT'd, and much of the nomination itself could fall under WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm talking against a wall here. For the third unanswered time, what in this article is not already comprehensively covered in Food security and connected articles? Does anyone voting Keep here even bother to check if this is a content duplication? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is the same topic as Food security and as such they should be one article. EvilxFish (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems like someone tried to start the Food security article over again, with English as a second language using mainly Chinese sources. Everything in this article is covered much better in Food security. Angryapathy (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other articles explain the problems mentioned much better at the moment. Also IMO I feel calling it Future of Food will leave it open to partisan editing in the future, particularly if left in this half empty book state. The future of food is maybe a topic we are missing, we have a Future of Earth for instance but there is nothing here salvageable or coherent enough to keep. Delete and start again. Mattg82 (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elmidae's repeated and unanswered question above.
Keep it's amazing that we feed over 6 billion people on a regular basis, and the prospect of feeding 9-10 billion is daunting and one of the world's most pressing issues besides war and climate and technology. Speaking of technology it is playing an increasing role in innovating how food is produced, and a true revolution is underway on how we produce and transport food and what we eat. This isn't a "Food Security" topic -this is far beyond it. While we can all quibble about the near singularity of country of origin of sources, we should applaud the creation of this page with the full understanding that it will evolve to include rich and constantly evolving content. And I look forward to working on this page to improve it. Rsarlls (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer "Elmidae the word "technology" is used 16 times in the Food Security article, almost all relating to GMOs. The global consumer shifts away from animal protein (esp. in developed world - Millennials and Gen Z are increasingly vegans), the use of robotics and technology in growing and harvest crops, Impossible meat, driverless trucks, fully automated restaurants, urban and vertical farming, the role of app driven delivery services, etc. are NOT covered in the Food Security article. They SHOULD be covered in this article and I will work to include going forward.
Delete promptly. This is an embarrassing, severely English-challenged essay, not an encyclopedia article. Eric ^talk 17:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unneeded WP:FORK of Food security. Also, per WP:TNT; even if there were a topic here somewhere, this article's ain't it. Does not belong and not an asset to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The research cited might well be of interest but the presentation looks to have wandered into territory which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Dolescum (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whether to merge or to keep. Sandstein 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabjil[edit]

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

May be "invented by the user", or may be an established new Korean usage; and notability query. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I found this article requested to be moved from draft. I got a warning that the procedure to check drafts was backlogged "for two months", and the user requesting the move wrote that he could not wait that long, so I moved it and AfD'ed it, as the usual "queried move request" refuses if the requested move is from Draft:X to X. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anthony Appleyard: I am a bit confused about the rationale for this AfD (as it relates to the Draft handling, notability query is totally fine, except that it is easily addressed even outside the question of power harassment merger: article has plenty of sources, and here are some in English: [31], [32], [33], [34]). Could you point me to the relevant policy/guideline? Btw, as I noted, this was a Sandbox article that was supposed to have been moved to mainspace, it was instead moved without asking the author or instructor (it is an educational assignment project, btw) to the Draft space. I don't think it is common to move Sandboxes to Draft space, is it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Power harassment. Sro23 (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Sro23: Interesting point. Is Gabjil and power harassment identical? The interwiki linking power harassment to ko:갑질 was made just today by User:Tiens (ping). The concepts are certainly closely related, but the article as written focuses on Korea only, so it is at the very least about power harassment in South Korea. Korean press (see links above in my reply to Anthony) commonly uses this term in English without translating it as power harassment. The term is also used in English-language academic works, through mostly by Korean scholars writing in English (which doesn't invalidate it, but still worth pointing out): [35], closed access, sorry, [36], [37], Chris Rowley; Marie dela Rama (3 May 2017). The Changing Face of Corruption in the Asia Pacific: Current Perspectives and Future Challenges. Elsevier Science. pp. 243–. ISBN 978-0-08-101230-7.. I did find at least one Korean scholarly paper which equates gabjil with power harassment in its short English abstract: [38] and another one [39] which defines it as "making use of one’s prominent position and power" so in the end I think you are right, gabjil is power harassment, however I think this article is too large for the merge and ph in SK is a notable topic in itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say that I didn't notice that the new article 'Gabjil' exists as I've made the interwiki link of ko:갑질 to power harassment. These 2 terms are high related in terms of power harassment meanly, however the word 'Gabjil' is used under the circumstance where there is some business or other contract between 2 parties or persons and one who have high power or position shows any power harassment to the other side. this is somewhat different usage with ja:パワハラ which is focused on the circumstance of power harrasement between employer and employee or senior boss and mere member/clerk. In my opinion Gabjil is a specific result of whole power harassment concept, and in addition this term is a kind of new term in Korean society. It'd good if Gabjil could be explained in the korean specific section of power harassment, or splitted to separated article, in bother case 2 term should be linked. thanks. -- Tiens (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider renaming. Per my extensive replies with sources above I think this article is clearly notable, and too large to merge to power harassment, but it may be worthwile to consider renaming it to power harassment in South Korea. While the Korean term is used in English literature, we should consider WP:COMMONNAME. I am not however leaning towards said rename, as my searchers for phrases "power harassment in Korea" and "power harassment in South Korea" turned out exactly zero hits. When this topic is discussed, it seems that scholars (and press) use the Korean term (also note it is transliterated with p as 'gapjil', and sometimes with a hyphen - as well). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Power harassment. --Aoinne (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is nothing inherently offensive to the inclusion of this topic in the encyclopedia, and every new relisting merely generates a further split of opinion, rather than moving the discussion towards a consensus. bd2412 T 23:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus routes in Newcastle, New South Wales[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL Ajf773 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Does not fall under any of the points mentioned in WP:NOTDIR and has nothing to do with WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists of bus routes for various cities are common on Wikipedia and are well accepted (see WP:LISTN and WP:LISTPURP). This article is as notable as any other listed within Template:Regional_NSW_public_transport and Template:AusPTBus. Kb.au (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they are not. A lot of List of bus routes in xxx have been deleted in similar AfD's (a couple of examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bus_routes_in_Bristol and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bus_routes_in_Leeds. What makes you think it has nothing to do with WP:NOTTRAVEL, essentially all it is is travel!! Ajf773 (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Well established precedent for such articles. Aoziwe (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No precedent exists at all for list of bus route articles. Ajf773 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the article needs improving, but that is not grounds for deletion. Do all of these 300+ need deleting? Aoziwe (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are candidates for deletion as well. Category:Lists of bus routes only shows less than 50. I have started flagging some too. Ajf773 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either the 300+ established a precedent or it does not. Either they (probably) all go, or they all stay including this one. Yes they are bus cruft with no intrinsic notability, but there are also literally hundreds of thousands of other articles with no intrinsic notability which are agreed to be notable (currently at least). Aoziwe (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good indicator of notability is whether any of the individual bus routes are notable in their own right. The only British based list article to survive AfD is List of bus routes in London, mainly because roughly 10-15% of bus routes have articles and/or are notable enough to have one. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Ajf773 (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, I am kind of on the fence, yes it could kind of fall under the NOTTRAVEL but does not really necessarily fall under NOTDIRECTORY. The only reason I am saying that is because unlike some I have seen on here, it provides a bit more than just a list of bus routes in Newcastle, New South Wales it actually talks about them, and such, now I could see if the wording and article was a bit more improved and polished and have a bit more content it really saying keep, but I could also see a merge into the main article about Newcastle, as a section. With reducing the amount of bus lines mentioned and keeping to the more notable ones. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much about detail about any of the routes in this list article apart from basic info such as termini, main stops and content about days of operation - nothing of importance at all. There is also a whole section relating to bus lanes (despite being unsourced) and a nice table of fares (this bit definitely fails WP:NOTTRAVEL). All in all, individually are almost always not notable and it's unlikely any routes in a city of around 300,000 will ever have one. Ajf773 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft lacking significant secondary sources discussing this set of routes to establish notability. It fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOR at the least.Charles (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - doesn't violate WP:DIR and AfD is not cleanup. This is better than a lot of the other "Bus routes in ..." articles, given that the article talks in more general terms about services in the area. You can make an argument that some parts of the article could be removed or rewritten, but the article doesn't warrant deletion. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the majority of AfD's outcomes, WP:NOTDIR has been mentioned multiple times. This is a simple list of non notable bus routes ... as Charlesdrakew puts it: WP:FANCRUFT. There is no in-depth mention of terms and services in the article nor any need for one without potentially violating WP:NOTTRAVEL Ajf773 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the topic is notable. AfD is not a substitute for changes in the article -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's notable exactly? Bus transport in Newcastle? or the bus routes? Be specific. Ajf773 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Train routes are notable, airline destinations are notable, tram lines are notable. I don't see much difference -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid service routes are often notable, that includes heavy rail, light rail and tram routes. It may also include routes as part of rapid transit networks (with limited stops) but not local routes (unless there is sufficient secondary sources to satisfy WP:N. The same goes for stops, RTN stops (such as stations) are notable, bus stop are not. Ajf773 (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this article isn't about an individual route, its about all of them. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And from previous examples [40] they don't often pass AfD's. I can't compare this article to the other, but I can't see anything above and beyond other than just a list of barely sourced routes. Ajf773 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tram and train routes are permanent physical infrastructure. Bus routes are subject to frequent change and difficult to keep updated and accurate even if we wanted to.Charles (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given by other editors. In expectation of a badgering from Ajf773, no need, have noted what has been said above and my position is unlikely to change. But agree that the fares table should go. Turingway (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the fare table section should go, per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Kb.au (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing to consider here, as the nomination is a WP:VAGUEWAVE unsupported by preparation on the talk page to show that this was a problem that needed community-wide attention. Suggest more attention to WP:BEFORE going forward. Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two policies presented in the AfD seems very obvious to me. Ajf773 (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Unscintillating. Pointing at policies without explaining how it fails them is not helpful. WP:NOTTRAVEL talks about restaurant reviews, pricing and contact information, and indiscriminate tourist location listings. WP:NOTDIR is more relevant, but the examples it provides are mostly instances of ephemeral information (upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules) or unimportant information (a list of a company's patent filings). A list of bus routes is neither of these things, being both permanent and the primary component of a bus network. The article is more than just a list anyway, with the lead detailing the different bus companies operating the network. Kb.au (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTRAVEL points to WP:NOTGUIDE. A travel guide is a guide. Its scope is not limited to restaurants, pricing, contacts... it may also include public transport. Ajf773 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kb.au. This is a categorisation of Newcastle commuter bus routes by region, not something assocaited with recreational travel planning or guides. Given that some amount of effort has gone into preparing this, and that the contributers of this info don't seem to be aware of the AfD nomination, it seems wrong to just remove all this work. I have improved the article slightly and added a back link from the Newcastle Transport page. To remove duplication, the fares section could be remioed and instead point to Opal_card#Fares Teraplane (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:BUSCRUFT and WP:GNG - Back in 2014 the UK bus routes were all deleted due to a lack of notability and there's nothing different with these, Also if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website - not an encyclopedia!, and last but not least a lot of these all become outdated anyway (One article a few years back was 5 years out of date!), In short this whole article fails GNG as well as the bus-related guidelines. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are four bus operators across Newcastle, a passenger may not know which ones applies to their area of travel. This article defines that regional grouping. It also includes links to the operating companies timetables and fare guides in 'External Links', which of course is maintained and kept up to date. Teraplane (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Searching "261 University of Newcastle" gives us various search results all of which mention the bus company, Bus timetables go out of date all the time and so do the links to them, They may well be kept up to date however that doesn't address the GNG issue here which is our core policy. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.newcastletransport.info/plan-your-trip/bus-services is all people need to locate a bus in Newcastle, NSW. Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For the solid reasons given by other editors above. I agree that the article's fare tables can go, but AfD is a wholly inappropriate place to discuss problems within an article. That's what the Talk page is for, or being WP:BOLD. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are the article itself. AfD is the right venue for this. Ajf773 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that any issues should be confined to Talk. This page has been there since 2006 with no problems arising and gets 700+ view per month. It's had 105 edits, what sort of message do we send to those editors if we simply throw away their work with no warning, unless you are watching the page? The linked wiki pages for each bus operator concentrates on their own services. This page gives a useful grouping of services by region and not company. I have replaced the table of fares with a link to the appropriate wiki page to address some of the concerns above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not everyone's problem if editor's put in a lot of work and content doesn't meet any of the policies of Wikipedia. There is plenty of warning as this AfD discussion has been present for over two weeks and relisted several times. Ajf773 (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the article is widely read and updated, therefore useful to many. Highly unusual to class this as AfD, which is better suited to very new articles on trivial or self serving content. It may not meet your interpretation of Wikipedia polices, which often are in the minority. I've traveled often to Newcastle and used some of these bus services. So can vouch for the articles usefulness. You don't seem to have any particular knowledge of or interest in Newcastle bus transport. Many editors are not aware of the AfD process and would not monitor their contributions unitl it's too late in the case of a successful AfD. So again the Talk page is the correct place to highlight areas for improvement, along with enhancing the page itself. Teraplane (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just travel guide / directory-type information, which we do not carry per WP:IINFO. The "keep" opinions are weakly argued, as they do not rebut this argument, and such statements as "well-established precedent" are also weak as well as dubious, given the several previous deletions of similar articles. Sandstein 15:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR, if people want to know this they'll go to the bus company's website (which would be more up to date anyway), not wikipedia.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to Newcastle Transport, the new route operator. Specifically don't include the four sections with bus numbers; instead point readers to the timetables in the external links section. Why duplicate effort? This is excessive info for an encyclopedia, especially since there's no sourcing to indicate that these are anything more than run of the mill bus routes. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIR. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earth in science fiction[edit]

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

Page has been entirely WP:OR ever since its creation, and is more of a list of random shows and books that feature Earth in any shape or form. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This page is more TVTropes style than Wikipedia style. Full of WP:IPC-style sections, no references (other than the implicit referencing of fictional works), and no clear explanation I can find for why anything is or is not in the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete section 2 ("Earth as presented in various works"). I was originally going to say to blow it up and start over, since if one thing's clear to me it's that there ought to be something at this title, but upon reflection, there's enough decent stuff under "Common themes" that it's not worth throwing out; that section is still a bit heavy on the examples and soft on the academic theory, but that's fixable. "Earth as presented," on the other hand, is irredeemable. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of that section, save for a few sentences, is also just a list of example-cruft. Certainly small enough that anything notable could be put in Earth in culture instead._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. There are cruft issues here, but there is enough that isn't to sustain an article. Most of the "Earth as presented in various works" section could be eliminated or merged up to the previous section. I believe higher-level sources can be found regarding such depiction of Earth. The article probably needs to be retitled to make it clear that it only refers to depictions of Earth in science fiction franchises where there are other planets to which Earth can relate. There are science fiction works like Minority Report or even The Martian where there is no change to the status of the Earth itself. bd2412 T 14:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gerntrash (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems hopelessly broad in scope and pretty far into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. Would it be reasonable to merge the material into Science fiction set on Earth or to make such an editorial discretion on the existing article? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the common themes section is worth keeping as a basis for future work, though needs referencing to avoid WP:OR. The examples section should probably be completely rethought. There are similar pages for the other planets (see navbox) so deletion will likely quickly result in the page's recreation, and the page is notable enough to allow the page to exist. I don't see it as necessary to blow it up and start over. PriceDL (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like it is something Wikipedia is not, an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically a Summary-only descriptions of any works in sci-fi that mention Earth. It also seems like it would be hard to complete this page, considering almost all sci-fi's probably mention Earth. —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Putting on editor hat in a hope to help establish consensus: Delete per the policy WP:NOTPLOT. "Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works". That's what this is, just an aggregation of plot summaries. That also applies to the completely OR "common themes" section. Besides, the list's inclusion criteria is overbroad. Most sci-fi is about the future of Earth-based humanity and therefore involves Earth somehow. This is just as pointless as an article "Earth in films" would be. Sandstein 15:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Benedi[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria. He doesn't have any successful singles and albums, neither any major awards. Media coverage about him is close to none. The article is lacking independent sources. Quickfingers (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An Israeli of Russian ancestry who grew up in Austria and became noted in Bulgaria for Spanish recordings is, admittedly, one of the stranger things I've seen in a while. Nevertheless, [41], [42], and [43], if Google Translate isn't deceiving me, all appear to be significant, independent and reliable sources, thereby passing WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:MUSIC, I don't see any claim to music notability. The reference to a song being a hit in Germany is simply a music video on youtube. If it made it to a national chart, it would pass WP:MUSIC. Ifnord (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eggishorn, the sources, in so far as I can read them, appear to be reliable and of sufficient depth and peristence to pass WP:ANBIO. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eggishorn, almost all sources are totally reliable exept the youtube ones, but found it fair to keep this article. He is quite notable here, even if he is missing having a hit in Bulgarian charts, his songs are always in pop-folk charts. -Chris Calvin (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juliwe Cemetery[edit]

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

Non-notable cemetery, highly localized to Juliwe, which doesn't even have an article. Possible redirect to Soweto if it were mentioned there. Sources only point to a South African blog. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[44],
[45]
Google books has a report from 1997, and there is a lot of reportage from the last three months regarding a plaque that was placed at the cemetery. I'm not sure about the name, though. I see other names such as Roodeport West cemetery and Horizon View cemetery, even "Juliwe Township cemetery". [46] seems reliable and it does use the term "Juliwe Cemetery". So probably Keep Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those point to local newspapers and another blog. How is this notable outside of the city? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is notability inside a city? You've got WP:CORP's WP:AUD confused with GNG. Those newspaper articles appear to be the work of professional journalists. I didn't research the names of the authors, but they appear at the bottom. There are some unusually detailed articles here, including phone numbers you could call. There is another WP:RS listed in the article. As for what you are calling a blog, blogs written by notable authors carry the reliability of the author, and the author here is the City of Johannesburg. There is also the 1997 "Human Rights Report" on Google books, but I haven't been able to identify the author as anything other than "The Committee". Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me specify what I see about these sources:

* Allatsea.com - blog - author hidden behind a relatively anonymous email [47]

* Soweto Urban - local newspaper

* Roodepoort Record - local newspaper

* joburg.org.za - city website - primary -

* The Heritage Portal - blog [48] - primary - authored by City of Johannesburg

So as it stands, it can be sourced by the two local newspapers and the city website. It's right on the border of multiple, which I suppose is two or more sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G12 - most of this is a too-close paraphrase of [49]. Ignoring the copyright issue, this should be merged into a (yet-nonexistent) article on the historical town as a whole, which should meet WP:GEOLAND as well as WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for {{close paraphrasing}} AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is part of the Joburgpedia project where we are working with the GLAM institutions such as the Johannesburg Heritage Foundation and the City of Johannesburg to install qr coded blue plaque in places marked as historical and heritage significance around the Gauteng Province. These qr plauqes link to a Wikipedia page of that historical site. You can read more about the project here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WM_ZA/Joburgpedia_2016.Bobbyshabangu _talk 09:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redevelop into an article covering the community as a whole, not just the cemetery. This falls under Wikipedia being a comprehenzive gazeteer, this applies to places that have been wiped out of existence as well as those that exist at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of it covering the community rather than the single cemetery. It could also be merged into Roodepoort as part of its history. Heritage Portal has an article on how the location got the Juliwe name. [50] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This cemetery is a non-notable place. Agree with WP:GEOLAND. Ventric (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I went through the sources as described by User:AngusWOOF, which is an entirely correct assessment. As said, this puts it right on the border of notability. Enough to sway me. Ifnord (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability. There is nothing notable about this article. A cemetary, of which there are many millions, does not justify a stand-alone article because there are a couple of references out there. Otr500 (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JPL's suggestion and ATD that this is a wider place than just a cemetery; also the sources as described by User:Unscintillating appear to provide a degree f notability sufficient to outweigh the need to delete. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I misspelled "Roodepoort" above. I dropped "Roodepoort West Cemetery" into Google web and the top link was an abstract posted on nih.gov for

Hay M., University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. (2011). ""The last thing that tells our story": the Roodepoort West Cemetery, 1958-2008". J South Afr Stud. p. 37(2):297-311. Retrieved 2017-12-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I'm still not sure about the name, as although "Roodepoort West Cemetery" appears in the title, this is a capitalization style that capitalizes lower case words; and the text calls it, "the cemetery of Roodepoort West. So maybe a move to The cemetery of Roodepoort West would be a proper title for the article. Unscintillating (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Tkazyik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN, was previously nominated for deletion in 2009 and was kept. The keep arguments then were that he received press coverage. Both then and now the only significant press coverage is the Poughkeepsie Journal. It's the local newspaper, of course they're going to cover him. Rusf10 (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading the previous AfD yields, "...has received voluminous local coverage, mainly the Poughkeepsie Journal[,] and other local newspapers and news organizations that are not in the Google News orbit." Including the current nomination, everyone except the previous nominator agrees that this topic is well sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The arguements in the last discussion were either 1.as mayor of Poughkeepsie he is automatically notable (as a city of 30,00 people I definitely don't think this is the case) or 2. He passes WP:POLITICIAN as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" based on the fact multiple articles have been written in the Poughkeepsie Journal (which does appear in Google News, btw). How can the Poughkeepsie Journal not cover the mayor of Poughkeepsie? Can you find an article about him in another non-local source? Again, the issue here is notability, not verifiability--Rusf10 (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was the intent of the previous author to say that the Poughkeepsie Journal was not listed in Google News, so I have inserted an editorial comma to the quote in my comment. I think that statement is saying that in addition to the Poughkeepsie Journal, there are "local newspapers and news organizations that are not in the Google News orbit" that cover the topic as reliable sources. Unscintillating (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local newspapers always cover the mayors of local municipalities, we need more to show notability, and we have absolutely nothing more. This is not the 1950s when the city he would later be mayor of had over 40,000 people. He really is a defeated politician for state office and that is not at all a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: fails NPOL, "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office." >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local coverage doesn't cut it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you agree that he has "voluminous" coverage that satisfies WP:GNG? Unscintillating (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the word "voluminous" appear in GNG?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The words in GNG are "significant coverage". The nutshell states the need for "sufficiently significant attention". Unscintillating (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We know local politicians need something exceptional to be considered notable; nearby news reporting is typical of any person of Tkazyik'a status. "Voluminous" seems to be a popular word here so I apologize for not fitting it into my rationale.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And is the first AfD valid in saying that the coverage is voluminous? Unscintillating (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:Notability (events) is relevant, this !vote hasn't shown why. Unscintillating (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating unfortunately you are basing much of your rebuttals to an eight year old AFD and the word "voluminous". Interpretations of policy can/have grown after eight years and the use of the word "voluminous" doesn't override every vote you disagree with. Also remember: don't comment in excess, it is bad for your health!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and lacks significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. Local coverage is routine for local politicians and does not rise to the level that would be required for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have Fun Teaching[edit]

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

This article is very promotional and appears to have been created by an undisclosed paid editor. I cannot find reliable sources covering the company and think it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any mention of it in a reliable source. —Kodiologist (t) 14:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cwmhiraeth. I've removed (much of) the cruft in an attempt to start again: But, it appears there is no coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete similarly to the concerns raised above, the article was on my watchlist of articles I expected to get nominated for deletion. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Carrubba[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Article creator has been making various pages for the purpose of self-promotion for him, his friends/colleagues and their projects. This is yet another example. AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing both WP:NACTOR and the basic tenets of WP:ANYBIO; he is almost solely covered by social media, and completely lacks in-depth and persistent coverage in reliable sources. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A non notable individual with no independent coverage. Also looks likely to fail WP:NOTPROMO. Kb.au (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ – No significant coverage whatsoever. No newspaper mentions. Does not meet GNG. Kb.au (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 14:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Television Writers Vault[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I note the previous nomination passed by a whisker as 'no consensus'- probably due to issues of WP:COI and WP:PAID muddying the waters. This is no longer an issue, so we can look clinically at the issue of notability alone: there appears to be almost none. Both the literature and other sources have only a couple of passing mentions between them. Fails both WP:NWEB and WP:ORGDEPTH. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--As Fortuna said.Complete dearth of acceptable sources.On a side-note, I liked Cullen's phrasing--deletion energy in the prev. nomination:)Winged Blades^Godric 20:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete enough time since last AFD and still not passing WP:GNG. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Zoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company. Wikipedia is not a marketing or advertising platform nor an alternative to a corporate website. Fails WP:SPIP. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 14:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Educate a Girl[edit]

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

Difficult to find coverage due to its name. But it looks-like that it is only the program of the foundation. So, if the foundation exists then redirect but if not then clearly this fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a cleanup of this article a few years back, but struggled to find sources. This scholarship and its sponsoring foundation appear to lack notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn - holiday brainfreeze; I just realized that I was advocating a merge as first solution, so this should be a merge proposal. Will set that up. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic syntax tree[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON - concept is only used in publications of the two authors cited in the article (plus a third, Tim Moses, who overwhelmingly appears to co-author with them). No widespread use outside these publications can be found. Indeed, there's a good amount of overlap with use of the term in linguistics, so the name isn't up for grabs. I suggest partial merge to Program analysis, or a suitable more specialized article (not my field). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Merth[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ephemeral and undistinguished career in the mid-minors, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Article created by an editor subsequently community banned from new article creation for making many hundreds of such articles, in open defiance of notability criteria. Ravenswing 17:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player. We seem to have an overabundance of articles on such non-notable people born in the 1980s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't met WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG requirements. PK T(alk) 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McPherson (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY; fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undistinguished career in lower tier leagues, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY requirements. Note that he might 'get there' in future - he's credited with playing 84 games in the DEL, and NHOCKEY requires 200 games in that league. PK T(alk) 18:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Poodle crossbreed. Sandstein 09:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poochon[edit]

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

Non-notable dog crossbreed; sources are all atrocious and Google only seems to flip up kennel and scraper websites, a news story about one being stolen and passing mentions in "every dog breed ever in the world" books. TKK! bark with me! 01:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources do not exhibit the breed's notability, fails WP:GNG. Toreightyone (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Poodle hybrids, this debate has happened before, and I doubt the outcome would be much different. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 08:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per previus outcomes. No need fro deltion when ATD-R allows for a redirect of a potentially useful search term. 13:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates}

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4; G5 also applies, and would have closed as delete anyways. ansh 666 22:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ting (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't meet WP:GNG NZFC^(talk) 07:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure of WP:NFOOTY... Montgomery15 (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:G4. This is not substantially different from the article deleted in June. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Aronin[edit]

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

Provided sources are insufficient to establish notability and it's unlikely that additional sources will do so, too. ElKevbo (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provided sources are from the reputable Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Daily Mail, and Self Magazine. Notable contributions that a faculty member at UCLA has made to an influential journalist. ^[1]^[2]^[3] Writingwithwiki (talk)

References

^ "Maria Menounos reveals brain tumor, steps down from E! News". Los Angeles Times. July 3, 2017.
^ Miller, Korin. "Can Brain Tumors Run in the Family?". SELF. Retrieved 2017-11-03.
^ "Maria Menounos Thanks Doctor After Brain Tumor Discovery". The Inquisitr. 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-11-03.

Delete Member of faculty? Yes. Clinical instructor, not a full professor. One article in Google Scholar. Fails WP:Academic. Notability not inherited from patients. SPA author. Rhadow (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written. Subject has a one-event connection to a famous person, but no indicia of individual encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 14:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems to be WP:BLP1E at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete proximity to celebrities does not create notability. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A classic case of WP:BIO1E. No academic or other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. If notability is somehow demonstrated here, we should make sure to clean up the close paraphrasing from the subject's UCLA profile. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being on the diagnostic team identifying that some celebrity has a brain tumor is not enough to establish notability. The sources about the brain tumor are about Menounos, not about Aronin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Poodle crossbreed. Sandstein 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernedoodle[edit]

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

Non-notable dog hybrid. Source 1 is a kennel website which is entirely unacceptable, 2 is a scrape website, 3 and 5 and 6 aren't about the breed, 4 and 9 are the same kennel websites, 7 is a self-published book and 8 doesn't mention the breed at all. Google shows only kennel websites and breed-scrape websites, neither of which establish notability. Could potentially be rolled into part of this, but this crossbreed wouldn't even jump the bar for inclusion on that list in the first place. TKK! bark with me! 01:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Poodle hybrids, this debate has happened before, and I doubt the outcome would be much different.Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find this page helpful and useful. Perhaps the references can be edited but I would find re-listing to poodle hybrids to be detrimental. In particular, this is the dog breed of interest! Regarding "non-notable," Google trends says interest has continued to increase since 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.48.117.124 (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per drewmutt. We don't need an article about every crossbreed. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Five Iron Frenzy. Whether and what to merge from the history is for editors to determine. Sandstein 09:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's Funny, but Not Very Creative[edit]

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

I found a few websites selling the EP but none actually describing it in reliable sources. It was self-released and limited in number; it certainly fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to the band's article. It does appear to be quite a rare release, and plenty of sites talk about it, but I don't see enough RS for a standalone article, so it can be covered in the band's article, per common sense and WP:ATD-M. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band's article. The album is not independently notable and the article contains no encyclopedically relevant prose to consider it worth merging. The article is largely this:

Only 500 copies were made, and copies have been reported as being sold for as high as $250 on eBay

which is unreliably cited. Not suitable for merging. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BYK Additives & Instruments[edit]

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

Not notable. There is an obvious redirect, but it is contested. Lithopsian (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I assume you are suggesting it should redirect into a new section in the Altana article? I see many news articles specifically referencing BYK Additives & Instruments. I don't see why it shouldn't be a separate article, since it features in the news as BYK - I think there are sufficient reliable sources (that should be referenced) to demonstrate that it is not inherited notability. = paul2520 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to Altana. It was already redirected once (by someone else: "Not notable, without significant coverage") but quickly reverted by the article creator, an apparently-connected editor. Lithopsian (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect if deemed appropriate), I cannot find any intellectually independent references, just a bunch of company announcements (fails WP:ORGIND). Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable business going on with it's business. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote struck. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Schlossberg[edit]

Creations, AfDs and DRVs in chronological order:

Article created (20 January 2011)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (27 January 2011 - deleted)
Article re-created (12 May 2013)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (2nd nomination) (2 November 2013)
Deletion review 1 (3 November 2013)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (3rd nomination) (16 March 2014)
Deletion review 2 (23 February 2014)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (4th nomination) (21 May 2014)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (5th nomination) (28 July 2015)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (6th nomination) (27 December 2017)

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

Scholossberg is a 1st year law student, who wrote for his college paper as an undergrad, helped some of his high school friends organize volunteer efforts, got photographed a few times because his mom was an ambassador, and got a bunch of human interest and tabloid coverage as afterglow from very famous relatives. He has done absolutely nothing that even comes close to making him notable, and the coverage is not at all of a level to establish notability. I know this has gone through discussions before, but they have all ignored the rule that we write articles based on the preesent not on possible future situations, and at present Schlossberg is a non-notable law student. This may change in the future, but he is non-notable at present. They were also under the old name of this article, which makes it a bit confusing. I accidentally at first created this as number 4. I also do not know how to link the previous 3 or so nominations to this one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed from the previous AfDs except new additional sources have been added. This is a notable individual for all the reasons laid out over the course of many years by dozens of editors in multiple AfDs and DRVs. The nom believes "He has done absolutely nothing that makes him notable" .. he has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notability is not an award for achievement, anyone can be notable for any reason, including public and press interest. -- GreenC 14:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy gets even more coverage now than he did in previous years when I participated in some of the past deletion discussions for him. I just clicked the NEWS link at the top of this AFD and see results from as recent as Nov 17, 2017 from People magazine where he talks about climate change. Please stop wasting time trying to delete this. It meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 15:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable socialite; does not appear to have achieved anything significant. The article is full of trivia, such as:

"On April 10, 2016, he and Caroline greeted the then U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry who arrived at the Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station..." Etc.

Being on a best-dressed list is not a claim of significance. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a society page in a newspaper. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I am a bit swayed by K.e.coffman's comments, as I agree just being a socialite isn't enough, there's considerable mention in press of this individual. Notability isn't inherited, to be sure. While he hasn't done anything notable yet, he does attract considerable attention in the press [51]. This is a sufficient pass per WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think five AfDs and 2 DRVs says the community has well-considered this topic. I looked no further than one DRV, where I found this comment, "The delete voters did not address the sources presented and only argued against the non-existent opinion of "he's notable because he's a Kennedy." [52] Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are two concurrent nominations here. I have requested an administrator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (4th nomination). Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following two keep/delete recommendations were moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (4th nomination). The other AfD is a duplicate and concurrent AfD nomination, and these recommendations were moved to merge the two AfDs.

Keep - People may only notice him because of his relations and physical appearance and he may have done nothing particularly remarkable, but he has enough coverage in independent reliable sources ([53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]) to pass WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --WP:TOOSOON if ever. WP is not the Social Register Rhadow (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the subject qualify as a model? No. As an academic? No. As a social entrepreneur? No. The argument is that he earned notability by the quantity of press he gets -- press he wouldn't get but for the other seven people mentioned in the piece. Rhadow (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kennedy family is America's "royalty". He is active in noble things (philanthropy, etc.) which seals the deal as far as his "nobility".desmay (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty? "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States". Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution

[62] Jack Schlossberg · 7/1/2016 - 11/30/2017 · 659,116 pageviews. In the years before then the page had a different name, so more views then as well. He gets coverage for quite a large variety of things, not just passing mention because of who his famous relative was. Dream Focus 02:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so now the argument is this: he has a Wikipedia article, therefore he is notable. That is circular logic of the first order. Rhadow (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable because he clearly passes WP:GNG. I just thought that an interesting fact, how many people come here to read about him. Dream Focus 12:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It gets 1000 to 4000 views a day or 100s of thousands a year, plus it would create a couple hundred red backlinks which would be disruptive. The last AfD was closed by User:Sandstein with this prophetic message: the chance to obtain a "delete" consensus in any future nomination appears remote in the extreme. This remains true and John Pack Lambert was a participant in that AfD and should take heed. It's wasting everyone's time and becoming disruptive. -- GreenC 16:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"it would create a couple hundred red backlinks" -- Now the argument is that incumbency trumps the innate notability of the subject. I'll remember that. Rhadow (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability "argument" for keep is WP:GNG as noted in the Keep votes. -- GreenC 16:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would create a bunch of red backlinks because his name's been put on a bunch of templates. I don't know how many pages he's actually linked from. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons that can also be seen in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Beckwith, sometimes - not often, but sometimes, just being a scion gets you sufficient attention in WP:RS to carry you past WP:GNG. Even though you have never "done" anything.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Theatre Royal, Newcastle. Sandstein 09:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Royal: Project A[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Coverage consists of very local coverage, nothing rising to the level of general notability. Mostly already covered at Theatre Royal, Newcastle; any additional information can be added to that if properly sourced. But no need for a separate article. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

The institution has been written about numerous times in The Stage (see ref: https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2016/formerly-free-acting-course-at-newcastle-theatre-royal-to-cost-1500/, https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2015/newcastle-theatre-royal-launches-free-one-year-drama-course/?login_to=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestage.co.uk%2Faccounts%2Fusers%2Fsign_up.popup

It has had numerous national touring productions (13, Road) -- with it's first year garnering an audience of over 1000 people. Alumni have went on to perform with renowned theatre and film companies, and perhaps most notably Spotlight listed it alongside the likes of RADA and LAMDA in it's very esteemed and exclusive list of accredited drama schools that provide "Quality Actor Training" (ref: http://www.theatreroyalannualreport.co.uk/learning#projecta). This highlights the reality that Project A is one of, if not the only, Northern equivalent to drama school.

It deserves a separate article as it is breaking from the Theatre Royal into its own Equity/Spotlight approved training institution -- as well as expanding its reach outside of the North East and into Scotland; collaborating with the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and LIPA to provide a more national training ground. As one of the few accredited courses in the UK (around 20 exist), I believe that this course is notable in its own right and deserves a page of its own.

Furthermore, like the RWCMD, many of the final productions are held under the "project a theatre company" banner rather than the Theatre Royal. A separate page will also prevent confusion for users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.93.231 (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — 82.0.93.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Theatre Royal, Newcastle. No need for spin-out article. The purpose of this article seems to be promotion.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - sources are all primary, blogs, press releases or passing mentions. Nothing to establish independent notability. Waggers TALK 11:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although anecdotal, being an avid viewer of the London theatre scene, over the past year or so I've seen this place crop up many times in numerous programmes. Without this page, I would've had no idea what this place was. In short, alumni have warranted this article. As it has been made to appear in everything from The Stage to The Guardian, it is clear to me that this place transcends being a mere offset of the Theatre Royal, Newcastle. EDIT: Also, some relevent info that has now been deleted (not sure why) : Act 2 Cam, East London Arts & Music, Bodens Performing Arts College, Razzamataz Theatre Schools, Montfort College of Performing Arts are all less notable, and have less sources than Project A. It does not make sense that they all have wiki articles yet Project A does not. Especially considering PA is recognised by spotlight, equity, and Drama UK. comment added by LoveLoveLove1977 ( talk) • 11:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC) — LoveLoveLove1977 (talk)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I haven't found any New York Times sources, as pointed out by the user above, many articles don't have that kind of credability. I think that The Stage and Spotlight are creditble enough sources to allow this artcile to exist. Secondly, the fact that the drama school and theatre, though still linked, have seemingly broken from each other -- this article is nessersary on the grounds to avoid confusion.theatrelover2467 (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Theatrelover2467 is a CU-confirmed sock of LoveLoveLove1977. I've struck both their votes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of prototype solar-powered cars. Selectively. Sandstein 09:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twente One[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. No significant mentions in any independent reliable sources. Kb.au (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to List of prototype solar-powered cars. There might be enough on Solar Team Twente for there to be a stand-alone article, there clearly isn't about this specific model. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of a selective merge (basically the information in the lead), and list of prototype solar-powered cars seems like a good target. XOR'easter (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheTechFest[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to the lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Rentier (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a reference which gives the organisers' figure for number of attendees: 6000 across the days. There is also a brief New Indian Express Hyderabad item, but based on a press release so not a WP:RS, and a brief Deccan Chronicle report on speakers. These provide basic verification but more is needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability for the event itself. AllyD (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage which I discussed in my Comment above is too WP:ROUTINE to demonstrate notability in itself and my searches are not finding better. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahd Tamimi[edit]

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

Case of WP:1E. —cnzx 23:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I think it is no more WP:1E after the last edits! Safe My Edit (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is the "Hanzala Award for Courage"? If you look it up, the results are all associated with Ahd Tamimi. —cnzx 00:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she assaulted a soldier. This is not a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not news, and her actions are not even newsworthy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: The assaulted soldier is her enemy. "A kid against a heavily armed soldier" event, do you consider this as common news!?--Safe My Edit (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: she assaulted a soldier — how does that allow you to ignore the rest of the history? And from there, claim irrelevance? The article was not started because she hit a soldier. Not at all. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep WP:1E cannot be fairly applied in certain notable cases. Take Tank Man for instance, was this a case of 1E? Yes, the significance is much bigger in my example, but just to claim that the above mentioned article is 1E but this isn't is not fair. Also, the child gained her notability years before the recent events in a well known video in 2013 or 2012. This individual has more events than tank man. --Amr (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC) per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30--Shrike (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be compared to tank man yet -- it is way WP:TOOSOON to tell and is a case of WP:RECENTISM. Also, I couldn't find anything about a "well known video" from 2012 to 2013 either in the article or on the internet. —cnzx 19:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cnzx: The subject of the article was awarded a Turkish award in 2012 as a response for a video that went viral of her standing against a soldier. The achievements of the subject of the article are significant considering her age. Notability must consider her age. --Amr (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @عمرو: "Notability must consider her age." I don't understand your justification for this. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cnzx At the time, Ahed was a child. -DePiep (talk)

Delete Ahd Tamimi is not among the very few 16 year olds who deserves a WP:BLP...even Malia and Sasha Obama do not have their own BLPs, Huldra (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I think this depends on the significance of the events which these characters involved in...The event of Ahed as a kid stands alone against her heavily armed enemy cannot be compared with a single event of the above celebrities.--Safe My Edit (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Safe My Edit: I am very sceptical to starting any new BLP on en.wp of any person who is critical to Israel, unless such a person is clearly notable. This because I've seen again and again and again that "magically" there will appear editors who will push for including any, absolutely any critical stuff there is about a subject into the article. See Talk:Linda Sarsour to see what I mean. If she continues her activism, then sure, she will one day have her BLP. But now is just too early, IMO, Huldra (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I am not exactly sure whether you were talking about me in this case or not, but just to be clear I have been a user of Arabic Wikipedia since 2007 and I do have over 10k edits on there (so i am not "magically" here) and I am a very professional in what I do and do not let my personal views affect the quality or violate the rules of the wiki. I treat the subject of the article with complete neutrality. I would NOT have voted to keep the article if I did not see it was fit to be kept on Wikipedia. Please read my comment once more and let's discuss the technicality of it rather than just throwing favoritism and Non-neutrality accusations on each others and hopefully the community will reach a decision about this. Thank you. --Amr (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@عمرو:, No, I was definitely not talking about you, (you have never even edited the Linda Sarsour article, AFAIK), I was talking about the fact that some people will fight to have each and every thing which is perceived negative about her, plus a lot of fake news ..like from Michael Oren: [63] into her article. Huldra (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra I can expand the article if it is not deleted. I saw some of the "magic" you were talking about: why she slapped the soldiers was conveniently overlooked in the article before I added a sentence. I hope you can reaccess your position because I assure you I will be objective in re-writing the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick I don't doubt you, but I see the wiki-wolfs have started circling this article already....What you mention is so typical: only mentioning the reaction, and not what provoked it. Sigh.Huldra (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malia and Sasha Obama do not have their own BLPs because they have not done anything of significance during their lives that the other 31 living children of US presidents don't do. The subject of the article on the other hand, did. She was noticed first in 2013 and was repeatedly mentioned on different occasions since then so she is absolutely not WP:1E IMO. I would not have supported to keep an article about a 30 years old person who stood against a solider, however, when we are talking about a child who have done this multiple times and got noticed enough by the Israeli government to be arrested from her house (an arresting team was sent to her NOT detained during a protest), that becomes completely different story. Tank Man's action are important to be recorded because many people believe it is important although its clear 1E, however, The subject of this article is not. --Amr (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amr, take a look at the other articles in the Wikipedia category "Palestinian activists" and you will be hard-pressed to find someone with coverage as scant as Tamimi. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jprg1966 That is a bad argument. Wikipedia does not count as a WP:RS! IOW, your argument says, like: "Wikipedia does not mention it, so we should not mention it". Also, I find the reasoning by عمرو (Amr) convincing, and pleasant reading. -DePiep (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re Huldra: These are your responses in this AfD thread: 1 2 3 4 5. In these, apart from mentioning "1E" occasionally, you did not argue on the merits and faults of the article. Instead I read (generic) personal attacks/BF accusations to fellow editors, whataboutery, and "BLP of any person who is critical" POV bias. Please keep the discussion level of this thread above. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect for now to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2017. It is WP:TOOSOON to establish lasting significance warranting an article for her, with coverage too closely tied to one event and not centered in major media. However, the incident in which her cousin was shot and she slapped the soldier would be notable enough for the list I linked to. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC) * Keep : i think this article must be kept... There's many sources, and articles all over the world about her ! So it's ok for one on Wikipedia Sg7438 (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30--Shrike (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even broader coverage has emerged of the user in the last few days, and editors have included some older references in the article from reliable sources, such as major Turkish media. I'm changing my vote. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep : She's a famous girl, why wanna delete the article?.Anassalama3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC) per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30--Shrike (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. this is the user's first edit on Wikipedia. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Benoni (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC) per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30--Shrike (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even though you ignored my question about the Hanzala Award for Courage above, Safe My Edit, do you mind explaining why you've been editing the page in violation of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30? —cnzx (talk • contribs) 04:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 1E. None of the keep !votes have advanced convincing rationales and some have advanced no rationale at all. Lepricavark (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue reading below. -DePiep (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the current article does not make this obvious, she is at 3E at least, and probably at 6E, where she received wide and significant coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I'm not trying to be snarky, but what are these 6E? I'm having trouble finding anything other than the IDF incident. Frankly, she doesn't even seem to be the most famous person with this name. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 05:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will source this shortly (in the article) - but off the top of my head - the incident when she was ~13 and was filmed berating/threatening a group a solders. Her subsequent award from Erdogan (president of Turkey). The incident where she was filmed biting the hand of a soldier attempting to arrest a stronethrower. And the current event. All of these had SIGCOV - that's at least 4E.Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cnzx: I improved the sourcing in the article + added incidents. Note her name in English (and to a lesser extent in Hebrew) has approx. 10 different spelling variations which complicates sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She assaulted a soldier. This is not a significant sign of notability. Tankman and the Tiananmen Square helped create a major shift in Chinese society. What she did is not doing the same. The Israel vs. Palestinian conflict did not shift in a perceptible way because of what she did.Knox490 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E--Shrike (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: How are 6 separate events BPL1E?Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability to have a WP:STANDALONE article is not decided by what she has or has not done or any such merit. The bar that must be passed is the guideline on general notability: WP:GNG, which is determined by verifying WP:V significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS sources. Sources must treat the main subject of the article in depth, beyond WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Imho there are many sources who discuss her and her actions so the subject lives up to GNG. AadaamS (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tamimi has been covered various times since 2012 and has surpassed just being news or an one-event wonder.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is far more coverage of 'Ahed Tamimi' than 'Ahd Tamimi'. I have therefore moved the page to use this spelling. As Icewhiz notes, there are several spelling variations of her name, so redirects should be added from those variations if the page is kept.Dsp13 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the general reasons given by AadaamS.Dsp13 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am surprised that editors can reduce the week-long developing story to a "1EVENT" second. It was a string of events, with multiple parties involved, and violence (shooting). Then, there are these events in history too (December 2012, August 2015). At this moment the article has 30 RS's, from about 25 outlets. These are not repetitions of a "1E" incident, this is RS coverage of a multi-faceted development. Also, above, AadaamS describes it well. -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for now. She is only 16! ...ok, if she keeps up as she has started, she will sooner or later get a BLP. I would prefer that to be later, rather than sooner. (OK, so I'm extremely conservative when it comes to WP:BLPs, especially in the I/P area. For a reason: Most of the BLPs in the area are completely shitty...) Huldra (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra already !voted [64]. -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your personal opinion, expressed in saying "completely shitty" and judging by here age only, is how we should judge articles. You expect me to discuss "shitty"-ness? Or your lack of even looking at our basic guidelines? -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, User:DePiep, I thought this was a new vote, and that we needed to vote again. Basically it is by WP:1E. If you think being arrested in Nabi Salih is something exceptional, then you are mistaken. It is the rule, more than an exception. The same thing happens to hundreds of teenagers every year on the West Bank. Her cousin was also arrested, ...but no-one has asked for an article for her? Huldra (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your "shitty" remark is stroken, but my reply to it still stands. I am still waiting for your first comment that addresses this AfD truly regarding content-versus-guidelines. -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID. The article was only newly created and then nominated for deletion only one day after the arrest. It has now been 11 days since the arrest and there is still continuing coverage so the AfD seems somewhat premature. This person has had coverage in the news since 2012 (also showing WP:PERSISTENCE) so WP:1E doe not apply. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see developing WP:PERSISTENCE. There are editorials such as Why is the West praising Malala, but ignoring Ahed? by Al Jazeera, etc. The legal case against Tamimi continues, so we are likely to see continued coveraged. Keep for now; reassess perhaps in 6 mo, if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of ongoing press coverage of the case. bogdan (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was about to say almost exactly the same as bogdan above, plus the "viral" aspect of it. Keep for now at least, useful article.--Calthinus (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Famous activist. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per AadaamS. On a side note, the discussion immediatly turned political and most people here don't really care about wikipedia rules, they only argue due to their personal opinion on the subject. Which is sad. Really sad. Keep the article, let people who want to read about her, read about her in peace. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the D !votes they are actually from both sides of the political divide, as are the Ks. I think there is more of a matter of her being a borderline minor as well as the initial article appearing to be 1Eish (since rectified).Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the notability is weak especially in the english speaking community and to me it goes with wp:Fart and wp:Run-of-the-mill--مصعب (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility (which I'm just mentioning, not !voting for) is to merge with the Bassem_al-Tamimi article. OtterAM (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i think merging is a good alternative---مصعب (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN although I wasn't the only contributor, I have expanded this article to the point that anyone voting delete is ignoring five years of coverage and the lasting impact of this latest incident. I fear systematic bias may be a partial cause. مصعب I am at a loss; have you not seen the recent English-speaking sources (not that there is a requirement) written by the NYT, the Post, the Guardian, Time magazine, etc? Similar sources also exist for the 2015 incident and even 2012 when Ahed first gained attention.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information that is included here is very notable and definitely needs to be kept because of it's extensive coverage in the news. I had tried editing the Bassem_al-Tamimi article to included information relevant to this article too, but was prevented from making changes. It might be best to have a single article on the whole al-Tamimi family, but that might not be a realistic option either. OtterAM (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not you approve of her actions, she has repeatedly been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources since 2012. She is not known for one event, but for repeatedly confronting Israeli soldiers since the age of 11. Whether other young people have an article is irrelevant. She is not a private person, as her actions are deliberate public protests. Fences&Windows 20:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per the rationale given by K.e.coffman above --Epipelagic (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Exactly as Fences&Windows wrote. Ahed's actions make her a symbol for youth activism. Totorotroll (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has gained significant notability internationally. Whether this is in the English-speaking community or not is irrelevant, this argument is an example of systemic bias, see WP:BIAS. PatGallacher (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV is copious.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Not BIO1E as coverage precedes the December 2017 event. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She was awarded the "Hanzala Award for Courage" by Mahmoud Abbas in 2012, so how can she be notable just for the 2017 event? The article needs reorganization badly as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I also see a strong case for WP:PERSISTENCE, however, at the moment I think it is too premature to be deleted, her court case will be fairly high profiled and she will remain in the news for a while. I also see merit in the argument for merging her article with articles on the other members of the Tamimi family. Jp16103 20:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong keep "subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources since 2012" User:Fences and windows, "WP:SIGCOV is copious" User:E.M.Gregory, "significant notability internationally" User:PatGallacher, "significant coverage in reliable sources" User:Hrodvarsson. Also concern for systematic bias if deleted.Oceanflynn (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wow... The Story. Sandstein 09:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Pledge[edit]

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

Non notable single, Could be redirected back to Wow... The Story however out of the tracklists on "Wow... The Story" this is the only one to be created so in that respect it seems pointless redirecting, Anyway fails SONG as well as GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect sort of per nom, although i know, sort of not :) my reasoning: if this is the only song on the album that has had an article attempted on it, then it suggests it is the one most likely to be searched for? So, per WP:ATD-R, it could be a plausible seach term? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That does actually make a lot of sense but on the other hand the song may not be known at all and this could simply be a completely random song of them all and all for we know this could be their worst song .... which again could still be a plausible search term ..... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the pageviews have been very poor (In 2015 it got 10 views .... and then thereon after it's all been 5 or under), The pageviews side of it is for me what makes it pointless redirecting, ofcourse REDIRECTSARECHEAP and all that but for me it just seems pointless sorry :), Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wallowing in Dhaka[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOKS. No awards, very little coverage in the media. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolute dearth of peristent or in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to indicate sufficient notability for maintaining here. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Delete - Non notable article with less reliable sources. মাখামাখি (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mattan Griffel[edit]

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

A CV for an unremarkable entrepreneur who is affiliated with a nn company, One Month (deleted via prod). A position as an adjunct professor does not confer notability either. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is largely about the company, WP:SPIP or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- looks like an autobiography to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His only claim might be the Forbes "30 under 30 list". Besides the fact there are multiple lists, not just Forbes, the list he was named to was for education. So it is one of multiple lists of 30 people under 30 that Forbes publishes, and it publishes these lists annually. This is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.societyofauthors.org/

[2] ttp://dangerouswomenproject.org/2016/06/16/belle-boyd/

[3] ttp://rivendellwriterscolony.org/

[:1-4] "Maria Menounos reveals brain tumor, steps down from E! News". Los Angeles Times. July 3, 2017.

[:2-5] Miller, Korin. "Can Brain Tumors Run in the Family?". SELF. Retrieved 2017-11-03.

[:3-6] "Maria Menounos Thanks Doctor After Brain Tumor Discovery". The Inquisitr. 2017-07-03. Retrieved 2017-11-03.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]